Quoted from DarkSweetLady

I agree with you- nothing is happening in the music industry today. It has become so phony, most of their voices are probably manipulated by technology,  

A person could argue that Beatle fans are in no place to mock acts that rely on studio gimmickry. They could say that once The Beatles realised they needed to do more than their usual three minute boy-meets-girl teeny pant-wetters to have any longevity they found that as a live band they just weren't good enough. So while other bands - Stones, Dylan, Floyd, Zappa - continued the real spirit of rock and roll and pushed the boundaries of what a real band could do in front of a real audience they cowered in the studio. There they relied on George Martin's  overdubbing, splicing, editing and ability to sit through endless take after take to carefully construct their music around them.
Didn't Lennon spend the last ten years of his career hiding his shattered vocals unders layers of reverb and effects?
We would crucify any modern band that admitted it wasn't good enough to reproduce their own music on stage, and at least they try.
I. of course, would never say such things.

Quoted from Kevin

A person could argue that Beatle fans are in no place to mock acts that rely on studio gimmickry. They could say that once The Beatles realised they needed to do more than their usual three minute boy-meets-girl teeny pant-wetters to have any longevity they found that as a live band they just weren't good enough. So while other bands - Stones, Dylan, Floyd, Zappa - continued the real spirit of rock and roll and pushed the boundaries of what a real band could do in front of a real audience they cowered in the studio. There they relied on George Martin's  overdubbing, splicing, editing and ability to sit through endless take after take to carefully construct their music around them.
Didn't Lennon spend the last ten years of his career hiding his shattered vocals unders layers of reverb and effects?
We would crucify any modern band that admitted it wasn't good enough to reproduce their own music on stage, and at least they try.
I. of course, would never say such things.

Some might say the above was simplistically provocative (provocatively simplistic?):

Stones: Ossified since 1966 in terms of their stage show. Maybe they were happy with that state of affairs, but one could say that  it may have had (consciously or not) a smothering effect on their songwriting and studio production. By not limiting their songs to what could be played on stage, the Beatles didn't tie one (or eight) arms behind their backs in the studio, and the results out of Studio 2 reflect that in spades!

Dylan: "... push the real boundaries of what a real band could do in front of a real audience"? Puhleez! His stage shows as a solo act since the mid-60s have been predictably poor. His best shows were with a famous top quality back up band (e.g., The Band). Even now, as for decades, when he tours with a back up band his shows are often described as mediocre. [Note: I've seen him twice, and if I didn't like what he "represented", I objectively might have described the shows the same way.]

Floyd/Zappa: Did they really have these wonderful stage shows you reference - before 1970? Comparing what others did in the 70s and 80s with what the Beatles did in the 60s is a bit of the apples and oranges, don't you think?

You wrote: "...They could say that once The Beatles realised they needed to do more than their usual three minute boy-meets-girl teeny pant-wetters to have any longevity they found that as a live band they just weren't good enough..." . One could say the Beatles realized they were not good enough live in 1967 to play the music in their heads. Seems like good insight, with excellent results, doesn't it. And, back then, was anyone else?

Of course that's what someone else might say, wouldn't think of saying that myself, guv - nudge, nudge, wink, wink!

Nicely put theorums. Bands today have technology too easily available thus taking away a lot of the want in making good music. Once upon a time, being in the studio was an honour and accordingly hard graft went into ideas. Joe average today has more equipment at his fingertips than The Beatles and George Martin ever had, but no inclination, inspiration or ryhthms & scales left to go.

Message, spirit & execution. If them 3 are in order, then the vibe is strong and the myth & belief follow as collective conscious tries to evaluate, spin, sell & overplay it.

The live thing is where your really judged on your merits though.

Quoted from alexis

Dylan: "... push the real boundaries of what a real band could do in front of a real audience"? Puhleez! His stage shows as a solo act since the mid-60s have been predictably poor.

Surely you jest. Bob's 1966 Royal Alberrt Hall concert is often cited as the greatest ever. He was the future: accoustic  and electric sets, with extended and alternate versions of songs.
Floyd were playing the UFO club, experimenting with lights and film and long long improvisations.
These guys were the way of the future.
I think my real gripe is that we accept things from The Beatles that we would abhor in anyone else ie overdubbing concert footage in the studio and passing it off as live. Naughty and worthy of our disdain.
And yes, I was being a little simplisticly provocative. "Cowered" wouldn't be my normal choice of word.

Quoted from Kevin

Surely you jest. Bob's 1966 Royal Alberrt Hall concert is often cited as the greatest ever. He was the future: accoustic  and electric sets, with extended and alternate versions of songs.
Floyd were playing the UFO club, experimenting with lights and film and long long improvisations.
These guys were the way of the future.
I think my real gripe is that we accept things from The Beatles that we would abhor in anyone else ie overdubbing concert footage in the studio and passing it off as live. Naughty and worthy of our disdain.
And yes, I was being a little simplisticly provocative. "Cowered" wouldn't be my normal choice of word.

Yes, I agree with you. I just saw a clip of Hey Jude on Let it Be, where it seemed to me what was broadcast was their live voices on top of a pre-recorded instrument track. I'm still a little confused about that show ... Did they play "Live" TO the original soundtrack, using it as sort of a click track? It's pretty hard to fake playing a piano.

It does seem deceitful, and naughty to us today. On the other hand, when people like Hendrix or Clapton played live, they didn't need to reproduce the sounds of orchestras, etc. Was it the norm for the time?

I attribute it to laziness on their part.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

Good point Dave. The charts in our day were generally full of youth oriented music, and that did indeed make you feel that you were part of some kind of movement. Even if that movement was only in the mind. Now 50 year olds are buying stuff that's in the charts, which would make your average teenager run a mile. Some kids would think their parents were pretty cool if they bought the same music as them, but most, I imagine, would be horrified. If my mum had come home with a Clash record in 1977, would I have ever listened to them again?

Identifying with your parents is not what kids want to do. You want to rebel a bit at that age, even if just to make a point. And you can't rebel by buying Amy Winehouse, and Justin Timberlake.

A suppose in its way Dance/Techno/Rave music would have been today what the Pistols and all other music that youre parents thought was just noise and only the young ones got ? but the dance thing died off a few years ago and the next thing was Rap ? then it died off and now we have the Arctic monkey sound that all bands seem to sound like but they are also easier on the ear than the 2 mentioned before so now they are sharing the same cd's.

I didn't mean like in the studio, I realize The Beatles did stuff like that. I meant like, they just can't sing...also when they are live, they depend on computers and technology to make them sounds the way they do on the album....

Quoted from alexis

It does seem deceitful, and naughty to us today. On the other hand, when people like Hendrix or Clapton played live, they didn't need to reproduce the sounds of orchestras, etc. Was it the norm for the time?

i can accept the miming on TV bit - that seems par for the course. But going into the studio, playing over concert footage then passing it off as live is a no no. And that was just guitar music - bugger the orchestras.
And surely most of Revolver, Pepper, The White album should be reproducable on stage by a decent band?
Laziness - maybe, but I think it's more complex than that. Through in a bit of paranoia and fear for a start.
There is a thread somewhere that discusses the Hey Jude clip at some length.

The beatles themselves played on top of a 'live' take for the All You Need Is Love broadcast.

To reproduce Kevin, you would need backing tracks, which means you have to play to a steady click track which does then make things clinical. A lot of live bands would never have afforded an orchestra, so better to record without one. I try and use this theory when songwriting. That way, any extra musicians is a bonus but not essential. All good tunes should be able to be strummed on guitar, otherwise it's technological cover up time and massive publicity campaigns.

Quoted from DarkSweetLady

I didn't mean like in the studio, I realize The Beatles did stuff like that. I meant like, they just can't sing...also when they are live, they depend on computers and technology to make them sounds the way they do on the album....

Fair enough. I just have trouble condemning an entire generation as talentless because some make use of technological advances. Plenty plenty of good honest singers and bands out there.

Quoted from Kevin

i can accept the miming on TV bit - that seems par for the course. But going into the studio, playing over concert footage then passing it off as live is a no no. And that was just guitar music - bugger the orchestras.

It's common practice on a live record to 'retouch' the sound. A bum note here, and a miscue there. Some artists lay it on thicker than others though. It makes me laugh when I see one of those polls for best live album of all time, and Thin Lizzy's 'Live And Dangerous' is in it. A less 'live' live album you could hardly find. Apparently even some of the crowd noise isn't from their gig!

I pressume you were referring to Shea Stadium?

Quoted from BlueMeanie

I pressume you were referring to Shea Stadium?

After my abysml showing in Mastermind I'm not too sure. I know these things are common practise. I just wanted to remind that rock and roll has always been a bit of a game/con/charade, and The Beatles were no more exempt from playing their parts than anyone else.

Quoted from An Apple Beatle

All good tunes should be able to be strummed on guitar,

Or played on a piano. No doubt I'm dating myself here, because there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to build a great track out of a drum beat or anything else that appeals to you, but for me the best pop tunes seem to come out the musicians' having worked them out on guitar or piano. Maybe it's because those instruments encourage a progression or development of a song that leads to variation and building to a conclusion. A lot of modern music sounds very static to me; it circles around one idea or "hook" and instead of developing or changing, just fades away or comes to a full stop at the end.

Quoted from Geoff

Or played on a piano. No doubt I'm dating myself here, because there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to build a great track out of a drum beat or anything else that appeals to you, but for me the best pop tunes seem to come out the musicians' having worked them out on guitar or piano. Maybe it's because those instruments encourage a progression or development of a song that leads to variation and building to a conclusion. A lot of modern music sounds very static to me; it circles around one idea or "hook" and instead of developing or changing, just fades away or comes to a full stop at the end.

Guitar & Piano for sure and no it's not dated...What I mean is that no matter how you write the song, the guitar or Piano offer the simplest measure of whether it's any good or not. If a melody can glide over the chords well, then it's often a goer.
Almost every Beatle song works this way. Exceptions to mind are obviously No. 9...Blue Jay Way is a bit boring on guitar, Flying and hmmm, now I am struggling but i think i have made my point. lol

For me, if I can strum it in the back garden and it's vibing, then there is a good chance I will go out and perform the song with a full band. IT's very simple and obvious but very often overlooked.

Love this discussion. Yes, good songs are made to be sung (or strummed). A collection of effects or simple repetition gets quite boring after a while.