A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

PLEASE READ OUR FORUM RULES HERE

Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: Microscope: Band On The Run  (Read 6332 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bobber

  • Administrator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13490
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2012, 02:43:02 PM »

I don't find that so unbelievable because many people in this forum have a wide taste of music and don't stick just to the Beatles and the solo careers of ex-members. Several Byrds' albums are historically much more important than anything Paul did after the Beatles, opening the door for new genres. Actually from a Beatles fan perspective, I think it's richer the discussion that can be done about bands that were contemporaneous to the Fab Four than about the solo careers that hardly broke any new ground. Anyway, I don't mean to put these Microscopes down at all, I think they're very interesting, and I'm having participation on them as well.

A Hard Days Night Microscope got 37 replies. Revolver 42.

I'm not telling anyone what to discuss and what not. And of course it might be interesting to discuss bands and albums that were and are important. I guess I'm just not in the right mood currently to see those things in the right perspective.
Logged
GEMM is your best source for impossible-to-find !

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5432
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2012, 04:09:54 PM »

personally I agree with Hombre on this, Ive said before Im not a fan of solo Beatles stuff, just the Beatles.

For me John needed Paul, and Paul needed John

I have thoughts on this.

I don’t think it’s that they needed each other, but that they complimented each other.

I can’t think of another major act that had two fully functioning top-of-their-game singer songwriters operating simultaneously. This is why I think Beatle albums are so unique – you basically get the six best songs by two superior writers and performers. That’s why there’s really no dross, and why Beatle albums are always so interesting. You just don’t get a chance to get sick of any body.

Lets face it, if you take any two contempory Paul or John solo albums, throw in the best two songs George  has written that year, get Ringo to warble along on another and you’re always going to come up with a fairly decent Beatles album.

The big question for me is how did this come about? Is it the million monkeys typing Shakespeare thing? If you have a million rock bands, one of them will eventually produce two top notch writer/performers. Are they that one-in-a-million chance?
Or was there something about The Beatles psyche that allowed this to happen. Was it their super management team, that allowed them the freedom to realise their potentials? Was it because Epstein had such control that no one member could dominate, and because George Martin was so supportive and in tune with their song writing.
Or was it the very way The Beatles (from 62 at least)  were – four individuals with no obvious figurehead, that meant no  one person dominated in the cocoon of Beatle mania?

Personally I suspect the latter – in other bands John and Pauls competiveness would have torn them apart, or meant that one would at times dominate the other (Pink Floyd for instance) or forced one into a secondary role. But because of the tight control exerted by Epstein (another manager may have forced Lennon to the fore to give the band a frontman), because of the support of Martin (another producer may not have been so keen to foster their individual talents), and because of the bubble Beatlemania forced them into (creating that all-for-one  and one-for-all climate)  we have the unique situation of two complimentary but contrasting best-in-the-business writers, singers and performers.
Logged
don't follow leaders

Ovi

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1071
  • Tonight, I'm a rock 'n' roll star.
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2012, 05:16:06 PM »

I have thoughts on this.

I don’t think it’s that they needed each other, but that they complimented each other.

I can’t think of another major act that had two fully functioning top-of-their-game singer songwriters operating simultaneously. This is why I think Beatle albums are so unique – you basically get the six best songs by two superior writers and performers. That’s why there’s really no dross, and why Beatle albums are always so interesting. You just don’t get a chance to get sick of any body.

Lets face it, if you take any two contempory Paul or John solo albums, throw in the best two songs George  has written that year, get Ringo to warble along on another and you’re always going to come up with a fairly decent Beatles album.

The big question for me is how did this come about? Is it the million monkeys typing Shakespeare thing? If you have a million rock bands, one of them will eventually produce two top notch writer/performers. Are they that one-in-a-million chance?
Or was there something about The Beatles psyche that allowed this to happen. Was it their super management team, that allowed them the freedom to realise their potentials? Was it because Epstein had such control that no one member could dominate, and because George Martin was so supportive and in tune with their song writing.
Or was it the very way The Beatles (from 62 at least)  were – four individuals with no obvious figurehead, that meant no  one person dominated in the cocoon of Beatle mania?

Personally I suspect the latter – in other bands John and Pauls competiveness would have torn them apart, or meant that one would at times dominate the other (Pink Floyd for instance) or forced one into a secondary role. But because of the tight control exerted by Epstein (another manager may have forced Lennon to the fore to give the band a frontman), because of the support of Martin (another producer may not have been so keen to foster their individual talents), and because of the bubble Beatlemania forced them into (creating that all-for-one  and one-for-all climate)  we have the unique situation of two complimentary but contrasting best-in-the-business writers, singers and performers.


Wow, one of the best posts I've ever read. I fully agree with everything.
Logged
http://tangledupinmusic.wordpress.com - yet another music blog

Hombre_de_ningun_lugar

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1489
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #43 on: October 04, 2012, 05:49:03 PM »

A Hard Days Night Microscope got 37 replies. Revolver 42.

Of course, it would certainly be unbelievable that any other band gets longer discussion than a Beatles' album in this forum. I was refering to the solo careers, they're worth to be discussed, but it doesn't amaze me that they didn't get as much participation.

I'm not telling anyone what to discuss and what not. And of course it might be interesting to discuss bands and albums that were and are important. I guess I'm just not in the right mood currently to see those things in the right perspective.

In the case of Band On The Run I think it deserved much more discussion. Other 70's stuff by Paul is also quite relevant, but many people (including me) are not into his later stuff. I think your Microscopes of early 70's albums by John and George will get a lot of replies.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 05:50:39 PM by Hombre_de_ningun_lugar »
Logged
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

Hombre_de_ningun_lugar

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1489
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2012, 06:14:40 PM »

I have thoughts on this.

I don’t think it’s that they needed each other, but that they complimented each other.

I can’t think of another major act that had two fully functioning top-of-their-game singer songwriters operating simultaneously. This is why I think Beatle albums are so unique – you basically get the six best songs by two superior writers and performers. That’s why there’s really no dross, and why Beatle albums are always so interesting. You just don’t get a chance to get sick of any body.

Lets face it, if you take any two contempory Paul or John solo albums, throw in the best two songs George  has written that year, get Ringo to warble along on another and you’re always going to come up with a fairly decent Beatles album.

The big question for me is how did this come about? Is it the million monkeys typing Shakespeare thing? If you have a million rock bands, one of them will eventually produce two top notch writer/performers. Are they that one-in-a-million chance?
Or was there something about The Beatles psyche that allowed this to happen. Was it their super management team, that allowed them the freedom to realise their potentials? Was it because Epstein had such control that no one member could dominate, and because George Martin was so supportive and in tune with their song writing.
Or was it the very way The Beatles (from 62 at least)  were – four individuals with no obvious figurehead, that meant no  one person dominated in the cocoon of Beatle mania?

Personally I suspect the latter – in other bands John and Pauls competiveness would have torn them apart, or meant that one would at times dominate the other (Pink Floyd for instance) or forced one into a secondary role. But because of the tight control exerted by Epstein (another manager may have forced Lennon to the fore to give the band a frontman), because of the support of Martin (another producer may not have been so keen to foster their individual talents), and because of the bubble Beatlemania forced them into (creating that all-for-one  and one-for-all climate)  we have the unique situation of two complimentary but contrasting best-in-the-business writers, singers and performers.

Great post. I think the Beatles were more than the sum of the individual parts, there was a special synergy between them. I don't quite agree that selecting the best songs of each member during their solo careers makes a Beatles quality album, because it's the result of individual works. We all know that John and Paul didn't really write many songs together during the Fab Four days, but there was a sane competition that made them do their best effort. For example, Paul wrote many great lyrics with the Beatles, but during his solo career his words were very uninspiring. Many John's songs with the Beatles were recorded to sound innovative and the other members helped with their musical virtuosity, but during his solo career he wasn't very ambitious in terms of sound and music issues. If there's really a 5th Beatle, it is the magic that was present when they were together.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 06:17:54 PM by Hombre_de_ningun_lugar »
Logged
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

nimrod

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3125
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #45 on: October 05, 2012, 01:31:16 AM »

Great post. I think the Beatles were more than the sum of the individual parts, there was a special synergy between them. I don't quite agree that selecting the best songs of each member during their solo careers makes a Beatles quality album, because it's the result of individual works. We all know that John and Paul didn't really write many songs together during the Fab Four days, but there was a sane competition that made them do their best effort. For example, Paul wrote many great lyrics with the Beatles, but during his solo career his words were very uninspiring. Many John's songs with the Beatles were recorded to sound innovative and the other members helped with their musical virtuosity, but during his solo career he wasn't very ambitious in terms of sound and music issues. If there's really a 5th Beatle, it is the magic that was present when they were together.

Quote
Lets face it, if you take any two contempory Paul or John solo albums, throw in the best two songs George  has written that year, get Ringo to warble along on another and you’re always going to come up with a fairly decent Beatles album.

the trouble with solo albums is that John or Paul or George are free to indulge themselves into recording whatever.....and the 'backing musicians' are being told what to play, these backing musicians are so excited to be playing with a Beatle, they'll do anything theyre told.........you could never stick 12 solo tracks together by these 3 and call it a Beatle album, solo albums dont have the input of the others, for example pauls bass line on George's Something annoyed George, if he had done it as a solo musician he would have used somebody like Klaus Vormann to put a basic bass track on it, so IMO the song would have lost something (quite a big something), similarly, on Johns solo stuff, the only decent bass playing was on Double Fantasy when he employed the brilliant Tony Levin, but even then he instructed Levin not to 'overplay'........ fortunately Tony did add some dressing.
Im not a solo Beatle fan mainly because the others have no input into the songs creativity, and they needed each other for competition, I therefore truly believe that they did 'need' each other in order to be truly great and not just average.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2012, 02:47:13 AM by nimrod »
Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

Hombre_de_ningun_lugar

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1489
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #46 on: October 05, 2012, 01:51:56 AM »

the trouble with solo albums is that John or Paul or George are free to indulge themselves into recording whatever.....and the 'backing musicians' are being told what to play, these backing musicians are so excited to be playing with a Beatle, they'll do anything theyre told.........you could never stick 12 solo tracks together by these 3 and call it a Beatle album, solo albums dont have the input of the others, for example pauls bass line on George's Something annoyed George, if he had done it as a solo musician he would have used somebody like Klaus Vormann to put a basic bass track on it, so IMO the song would have lost something (quite a big something), similarly, on Johns solo stuff, the only decent bass playing was on Double Fantasy when he employed the brilliant Tony Levin, but even then he instructed Levin not to 'overplay'........ fortunately Tony did add some dressing.
Im not a solo Beatle fan mainly because the others have no input into the songs creativity, and they needed each other for competition, I therefore truly believe that they did 'need' each other in order to be truly great and not just average.

You're giving good examples nimrod. I agree.
Logged
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

nimrod

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3125
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #47 on: October 05, 2012, 02:55:11 AM »


I can’t think of another major act that had two fully functioning top-of-their-game singer songwriters operating simultaneously. This is why I think Beatle albums are so unique – you basically get the six best songs by two superior writers and performers. That’s why there’s really no dross, and why Beatle albums are always so interesting. You just don’t get a chance to get sick of any body.



there are a few Kevin that were major bands, John Lodge & Justin Hayward (Moody Blues), Gerry Beckley & Dewey Bunnell (America), Roger Hodgson & Rik Davies (Supertramp), Graham Gouldman & Eric Stewart (10CC),  Walter Becker & Donald f**en, (Steely Dan) and of course Jagger & Richards (although I know Keith didnt sing much)...;)
Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10855
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #48 on: October 05, 2012, 03:48:24 AM »

we have the unique situation of two complimentary but contrasting best-in-the-business writers, singers and performers.


...and they needed each other for competition, I therefore truly believe that they did 'need' each other in order to be truly great and not just average.

I agree, Kevin and Kev.  They had a symbiotic relationship and potentiated each other's talents.  The result was a band that will be legendary forever.
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

blmeanie

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 248
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #49 on: October 05, 2012, 12:10:43 PM »

the trouble with solo albums is that John or Paul or George are free to indulge themselves into recording whatever.....and the 'backing musicians' are being told what to play, these backing musicians are so excited to be playing with a Beatle, they'll do anything theyre told.........you could never stick 12 solo tracks together by these 3 and call it a Beatle album, solo albums dont have the input of the others, for example pauls bass line on George's Something annoyed George, if he had done it as a solo musician he would have used somebody like Klaus Vormann to put a basic bass track on it, so IMO the song would have lost something (quite a big something), similarly, on Johns solo stuff, the only decent bass playing was on Double Fantasy when he employed the brilliant Tony Levin, but even then he instructed Levin not to 'overplay'........ fortunately Tony did add some dressing.
Im not a solo Beatle fan mainly because the others have no input into the songs creativity, and they needed each other for competition, I therefore truly believe that they did 'need' each other in order to be truly great and not just average.

great post, thoughts.

Makes me think ----->  if you assume they still worked together somehow/someway after the breakup (alternate universe), and further assume their songwriting would have gone down the same paths they did but the difference being they had the collaboration (lesser maybe) of the others I wonder what might have been different. 

Some of their great solo songs - would there have been something suggested/added by a former Beatle bandmate that would have changed those songs.  You mention that you believe John's solo works lacked imaginative (my word from reading your post) bass work until Double Fantasy. 

What if his solo catalog had Paul playing bass here and there over the years? 

What songs scream for that kind of addition in your mind? How would a particular song or songs be "improved" ?  Has anyone covered Johns solo songs and added their "improvements" that you've sat back and said, wow, wish John had done that or had Paul/George/Ringo on that song to come up with that or something like that?
Logged

nimrod

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3125
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #50 on: October 06, 2012, 02:52:40 AM »

Its impossible to speculate of course, but when they became individuals instead of The Beatles they never imo achieved greatness, Paul (whilst continuing to be the hard worker) was free to become more twee and silly, and he didnt have John to tell him his lyrics were 'ordinary' and that Mary Had A Little Lamb & C Moon were bad ideas in the rock driven 70's......then again John didnt have Paul to get him working harder, or pushing him to get his lazy arse into gear and write some good songs under pressure.....so he became the lazy 'John the Nowhere Man' only this time he had Yoko to get up to all kinds of daft projects that his fans didnt understand whilst occasionally shovelling together an album when the record company came calling/demanding some output and $$$$.

George used his backlog of songs written as a Beatle to make a very good album but then sank into his reticent rock star mode and only worked when he wasnt doing something more important like gardening on a grand scale or driving his Ferraris/Lamborghini's with Eric Clapton at the Formula 1 race track...................music to him seemed to be a necessary chore, maybe to pay the mortgage on his various houses and his lavish materialistic lifestyle (which was so out of touch with the teachings of the Hare Krishna temple).

As a whole they were magnificent, but the individual sum of the parts didnt equal the whole.
Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

blmeanie

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 248
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #51 on: May 22, 2014, 12:16:44 AM »

Revival of a very old thread.

Looked this one up after listening to Band On The Run in the car tonight.  Felt like meeting up with an old friend I hadn't seen in a while.  Pictures (songs) here or there, but hadn't seen the old friend in ages.

It holds up.  Loved reading the microscopes and the last few posts before this one about "what if".

Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6875
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #52 on: May 22, 2014, 08:03:02 AM »

I agree with you. Its a good one.

Moogmodule

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 543
Re: Microscope: Band On The Run
« Reply #53 on: May 22, 2014, 08:59:00 AM »

Revival of a very old thread.

It holds up.  Loved reading the microscopes and the last few posts before this one about "what if".

I think your 'what if' deserves a thread of its own. It's pretty fundamental to our views in why we like the Beatles so much but why so much of the solo work gets a "meh".
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
 

Page created in 2.48 seconds with 28 queries.