The Beatles - 20th Century Greats

[Andrew Schulman]

Excellent film by Howard Goodall, the how and why the Beatles were so
great:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKK0bCSIR4E

Andrew

[Jerry Willard]

great post Andrew thanks for posting

[dewach...@gmail.com]

Thanks Andrew I've been looking for something interesting to watch whilst widiling away in the shop all day. The Beatles always lift my spirits!

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Number 9, number 9, number 9 ... Their best # which never caught on ...
But this guy (the protagonist of the documentary) has a very beautiful British accent and sings quite well!
Music appreciation has finally reached the rock and roll pop music world!

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 13, 1:30 am, Andrew Schulman <and...@abacaproductions.com>
wrote:

I was surprised to come across something of such high quality that I
hadn't seen or heard about. The Beatles music is very "classical
guitar - on topic" as the body of work they created yields so much
excellent solo guitar repertoire. Two pieces I'd never arranged and
did so recently, If I Fell, considered John Lennon's first
masterpiece, and his first song written with solo fingerstyle
accompaniment, Julia, are great examples, but there are so many.
Probably more percentage wise and in sheer numbers then any other song
output.

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 13, 10:20 am, Fadosolrélamisi <rei...@telus.net> wrote:
> On Friday, April 12, 2013 10:30:00 PM UTC-7, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> > Excellent film by Howard Goodall, the how and why the Beatles were so
>
> > great:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKK0bCSIR4E
>
> > Andrew
>
> Number 9, number 9, number 9 ...
>

Block that kick, block that kick...

[Richard Jernigan]

Thanks, Andrew. Way to go!

RNJ

[John Nguyen]

On Apr 13, 1:30 am, Andrew Schulman <and...@abacaproductions.com>
wrote:

Nice!!! it was a lesson in music theory and harmonics of its own and
worths every minutes of it for this Saturday afternoon.

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 13, 4:45 pm, John Nguyen <johnnguyen5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice!!! it was a lesson in music theory and harmonics of its own and
> worths every minutes of it for this Saturday afternoon.
>

He does a great job, great musician with a voice good enough to convey
his ideas.

Andrew

[Murdick]

May I opine one reason why the Beatles were so great? Well, because they were creative and all that, but their background was Dixieland, not rock and roll. Rock music arrived late in England, and the Beatles as kids were brought up on Trad Jazz. Paul wrote "When I'm 64" when he was in high school and his favorite composer was Fats Waller.

BTW, I saw Jimmy Larocca, Nick's son, play in New Orleans on Saturday. He can still play the trumpet. This name probably doesn't mean anything to most of you because you're Americans. Go ask a Frenchman.

[Murdick]

Oh, and one more thing, ask a typical 15 year old today to name one person in the Beatles, that is if he knows who the Beatles are. In 20 years, no Americans will know who the Beatles are, just like they don't know what the ODJB is.

[Cactus Wren]

On Monday, April 15, 2013 6:06:37 PM UTC-7, Murdick wrote:
> Oh, and one more thing, ask a typical 15 year old today to name one person in the Beatles, that is if he knows who the Beatles are. In 20 years, no Americans will know who the Beatles are, just like they don't know what the ODJB is.

They don't need to know anything, they can just ask their phones.

... although the word "phone" will perhaps be simply a vestigial piece of trivia.

[Murdick]

You have to know about it to look it up, even on an i-phone.

[zachrob...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 15, 2013 8:06:37 PM UTC-5, Murdick wrote:
> Oh, and one more thing, ask a typical 15 year old today to name one person in the Beatles, that is if he knows who the Beatles are. In 20 years, no Americans will know who the Beatles are, just like they don't know what the ODJB is.

My kids love them

[Cactus Wren]

I know a 10 year old kid who plays guitar and likes the Beatles and classic rock as well.

[Andrew Schulman]

Kent, wrong!

Andrew

[Che]

I loved this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dhCM72nzHw "Bluin' The Black Keys" by Arthur Schutt. I found the sheet music but it's definitely a duo and a real tuffie for good pianist. Jes' crazy good!!!

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 15, 6:03 pm, Murdick <lutem...@aol.com> wrote:
> May I opine one reason why the Beatles were so great?
>

Yes.

>  Well, because they were creative and all that, but their background was Dixieland, not rock and roll.
>

No.

>
>  Rock music arrived late in England, and the Beatles as kids were brought up on Trad Jazz.
>

No.

I could recommend a number of books, but the best is Walter Everett's
two volume - The Beatles As Musicians.

Andrew

[JMF]

I was going to reply "You're dead wrong, my daughter is only 12 years
old and she is crazy about the Beatles!" when I remembered that I live
in Italy ...

[thomas]

On Monday, April 15, 2013 7:06:37 PM UTC-6, Murdick wrote:
> Oh, and one more thing, ask a typical 15 year old today to name one person in the Beatles, that is if he knows who the Beatles are. In 20 years, no Americans will know who the Beatles are, just like they don't know what the ODJB is.>

I doubt that. The Beatles were far more talented than the ODJB.

[Murdick]

Hey Andrew, I work with a 70 year old Brit. He told me that when he was a teenager the dominant music in England was Dixieland revival. That's what he started playing when he was in his early twenties. Listen to ODJB's chord changes in their tune Margie. Sounds like Beatle's changes. I think the Beatles are fabulous innovators and important musicians, but their background is clearly different from American rockers (they recorded "Red Sails In The Sunset" for christ's sake). And yes, they will be soon be forgotten just like Michael Faraday (the scientist who invented the 20th century), Buddy Bolden, and ODJB- at least in America. If I get a chance I will look up those books you mentioned. BTW, listen to Paul McCartney's extensive interview on NPR.

[Murdick]

Oh, and I'm not saying they didn't take from American rock and roll. You can hear Little Richard and Chuck Berry very clearly. My Brit friend Frank will be in any minute. I'll ask him how much rock and roll they played on radio when he was a kid. Frank played with Elton John, BTW, and is an absolute contemporary of the Beatles. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

[Slogoin]

On Apr 16, 5:41 am, Murdick <lutem...@aol.com> wrote:

> Michael Faraday (the scientist who invented the 20th century)

You know, making nutty statements like this does not help make your
point. Shearer did not invent CG pedagogy and Faraday did not invent
the 20th centur. Being forgotten has nothing to do with the
importance of someone's work.

[Murdick]

What do you think the 20th century would have been like without Faraday's magnetism equations? Of course they probably would have been discovered by someone else,but still, Faraday came up with the ideas first. To quote one Physics book, "without these equations, the 20th century would not have happened." As far as Shearer goes, we all know that many of his ideas were discovered independently by others. Still, there is a huge school of playing which relies on the rest stroke P. I believe Shearer was right in avoiding this trap.

[wollybyrde]

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:41:44 AM UTC-5, Murdick wrote:

> On Monday, April 15, 2013 11:26:48 PM UTC-5, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>

skiffle- close

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 16, 8:41 am, Murdick <lutem...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 15, 2013 11:26:48 PM UTC-5, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 6:03 pm, Murdick <lutem...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > May I opine one reason why the Beatles were so great?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > >  Well, because they were creative and all that, but their background was Dixieland, not rock and roll.
>
> > No.
>
> > >  Rock music arrived late in England, and the Beatles as kids were brought up on Trad Jazz.
>
> > No.
>
> > I could recommend a number of books, but the best is Walter Everett's
>
> > two volume - The Beatles As Musicians.
>
> > Andrew
>
> Hey Andrew, I work with a 70 year old Brit.  He told me that when he was a teenager the dominant

> music in England was Dixieland revival..
>
"The UK Skiffle music craze lasted from about 1953 to 1960.."
>
>
>...important musicians, but their background is clearly different from American rockers...
>
An important element, for them and all the young Brits of the 50s, was
that they were inundated with classical music. That's practically all
that that was played on BBC radio and then TV. Think about what that
would do. (McCartney talks about how they hated it, but still, the
sound penetrated.)
>
> And yes, they will be soon be forgotten.
>
They are already the new classical music.

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 16, 9:03 am, Murdick <lutem...@aol.com> wrote:
> Oh, and I'm not saying they didn't take from American rock and roll.
>
>

Of course they did!

>
> I'll ask him how much rock and roll they played on radio when he was a kid. Frank played with Elton
> John, BTW, and is an absolute contemporary of the Beatles. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
>

Kent, all you need to know is well documented.

Andrew

[Murdick]

My friend Frank claims it was Dixieland, although skiffle bands existed and were popular. They couldn't find enough horn players in the 50's, so they would take anybody. He learned to play jazz trumpet in a Dixieland band. Of course most of the horn players in the US were unemployed.

[Mack A. Damia]

I was a young kid in the early 1950s in England, and we listened to
the radio all the time. Didn't own a TV until 1955. There was only
one radio station, too - the BBC. Don't recall rock 'n roll until we
came to the U.S. in 1955. "Bandstand" (a local Philadelphia show) was
hot in those days.

In England, though, some classical but mostly music of Gershwin, Kern,
Ivor Novello, Cole Porter, et al as well as light classics - Eric
Coates, for instance. Novello was very popular especially after he
died in 1951. His music was ubiquitous during the war.

--

[Che]

You forgot Ivor Mairants, Dr. Pangloss.

[Paul Magnussen]

Indeed.

Frank is not the only one who can remember Britain in the '40s & '50s: I
was born in 1946, and well remember what the BBC was playing. In the
erly'50s, classical music aside, it was muck like "How much is the doggy
in the window?", and some stuff that was a trifle better, such as
Frankie Laine and later the unfortunate Michael Holliday.

When Rock 'n Roll came along, the Beeb dutifully provided it -- although
the comp�res seemed rather like vicars at a rugby sing-along, determined
to provide a good time for all.

The first such TV programme was Six-Five Special, fronted by Don Lang
and his Frantic Five (1957).

Fond memories: after "You're a pink toothbrush, I'm a blue toothbrush",
it was like getting out of prison.

So yes, the Beatles were certainly aware of Dixieland (and, BTW, Jazz
provided the competent musicians for the Rock 'n Roll shows, slumming it
to earn a crust); but it was only part of the picture. And I haven't
even touched on skiffle.

Paul Magnussen

[Cactus Wren]

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:47:43 AM UTC-7, Paul Magnussen wrote:
> Andrew Schulman wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 9:03 am, Murdick <lutem...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Oh, and I'm not saying they didn't take from American rock and roll.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > Of course they did!
>
> >> I'll ask him how much rock and roll they played on radio when he was a kid. Frank played with Elton
>
> >> John, BTW, and is an absolute contemporary of the Beatles. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
>
> >>
>
> > Kent, all you need to know is well documented.
>
>
>
> Indeed.
>
>
>
> Frank is not the only one who can remember Britain in the '40s & '50s: I
>
> was born in 1946, and well remember what the BBC was playing. In the
>
> erly'50s, classical music aside, it was muck like "How much is the doggy
>
> in the window?", and some stuff that was a trifle better, such as
>
> Frankie Laine and later the unfortunate Michael Holliday.
>
>
>
> When Rock 'n Roll came along, the Beeb dutifully provided it -- although
>

> the compères seemed rather like vicars at a rugby sing-along, determined

>
> to provide a good time for all.
>
>
>
> The first such TV programme was Six-Five Special, fronted by Don Lang
>
> and his Frantic Five (1957).
>
>
>
> Fond memories: after "You're a pink toothbrush, I'm a blue toothbrush",
>
> it was like getting out of prison.
>
>
>
> So yes, the Beatles were certainly aware of Dixieland (and, BTW, Jazz
>
> provided the competent musicians for the Rock 'n Roll shows, slumming it
>
> to earn a crust); but it was only part of the picture. And I haven't
>
> even touched on skiffle.
>
>
>
> Paul Magnussen

I'm not surprised you fell hard for flamenco!

[Mack A. Damia]

Let's not forget Ivor Lipschitz who wrote "Tallahassee Assie", a year
before Freddy "Boom-Boom" Cannon added an L, Count Pococurante.

--

[Murdick]

So, Paul, here's how I see it. Rock was well along in years when the Beatles hit. When I stared learning their songs (I was 16)I really got into the chords and non-rock standard melodies. It even occurred to me at the time that these guys must come from a different music culture. I think this is the thing that made them great, and then they built on that. BTW, I was born in 1946 as well.

[Paul Magnussen]

Murdick wrote:
> So, Paul, here's how I see it. Rock was well along in years when the Beatles hit. When I stared learning their songs (I was 16)I really got into the chords and non-rock standard melodies. It even occurred to me at the time that these guys must come from a different music culture. I think this is the thing that made them great, and then they built on that.

Indeed it was. FWIW, it's always seemed to me that the usual division
by decades into '50s and 60's, insofar as any such arbitrary division
can be meaningful, is less so than '56-65 and '66-75.

The first decade saw the saw the first massive success of Rock 'n Roll
and the first perception of teenagers as a lucrative market to be targeted.

The latter was when the Beatles really became a major influence on
everyone else. Their first hits were earlier, of course, but the
British then were still listening to Ken Dodd and Max Bygraves (don't ask).

Paul Magnussen

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 16, 12:18 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was a young kid in the early 1950s in England, and we listened to

> the radio all the time...
>
>
I think it is in the McCartney interview that is the Preface to the
Recording Sessions book where he talks about that they couldn't get
away from classical music.

There are many references to skiffle in the books I've read about the
Beatles development as musicians. I don't recall a single mention of
the word Dixieland, and a check of the index in five of those books
shows nary a trace.

A huge factor of why they became so great is discussed in the film.
The early years playing in Hamburg where they had 6 hours and more to
fill every day, and so reached into all kinds of repertoire and
learned a great deal about music.

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 16, 3:03 pm, Andrew Schulman <and...@abacaproductions.com>
wrote:

> There are many references to skiffle in the books I've read about the
> Beatles development as musicians.  I don't recall a single mention of
> the word Dixieland, and a check of the index in five of those books
> shows nary a trace.
>

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the Beatles were unaware of Dixieland
music. They were aware of all kinds of music and were voracious
listeners of lots of things. Some influences were direct, Elvis for
instance, some were indirect, Beethoven for example (though they did
love rolling him over.)

Andrew

[Tony Done]

I'm from that era, born 1945 in Crewe, so my musically formative years
were early to mid 60s. I well remember Lonnie Donegan, The Beverley
Sisters, Acker Bilk, Max Bygraves and a load of others from that time. I
think that Kent is drawing a long bow associating the Paul M
specifically with jazz when the increasing access to recorded music (TV,
vinyl) was generating so many influences. The great divide for me at
that time was between pop as exemplified by the Beatles and the
Liverpool Invasion on the one hand, and rock/blues as fostered by Alexis
Korner, along with the blues/folk revival on the other. I've always been
in the latter camp.

--
Tony Done

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456

http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/

[Paul Magnussen]

Tony Done wrote:
> The great divide for me at
> that time was between pop as exemplified by the Beatles and the
> Liverpool Invasion on the one hand, and rock/blues as fostered by Alexis
> Korner, along with the blues/folk revival on the other.

Not as great as the divide between both those camps and Ken Dodd, as
surely even you must admit :-)

Paul Magnussen

[Tony Done]

True, but he was well below my event horizon. Do you think there was
greater diveristy then than there is now? I think so, but my view is biased.

[Paul Magnussen]

Tony Done wrote:

> Do you think there was
> greater diveristy then than there is now? I think so, but my view is
> biased.

Diversity of what? Of available music? No, there's much more available
now. To take just one example, Folk Music from all over the World has
absolutely exploded since those days.

Of types of music in the Top 100/50/20? I wouldn't know, I lost
interest some time in the '80s; basically, I could no longer be bothered
to sort through all the shit in the hope of finding a few gems (Jeopardy
makes the time-frame of my knowledge very evident!).

So when I do find things I like now, it's usually either by accident, or
through recommendations.

I still love good rock, though, when occasionally I find it.

Paul Magnussen

[Tony Done]

I was thinking in terms of stuff you might hear in the popular media.
The internet has had a huge impact on smaller interest groups, such as
the international folk you mention (American, Irish, English and
Rubbish were popular when I was at Uni), old concerts and TV shows,
and home recording. I love it, some of the old TV shows like OGQT are
a major source of my current inspiration.

[Tony Done]

> a major source of my current inspiration.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Typo - OGWT

[Tony Done]

On Apr 17, 8:08 am, Tony Done <tonyd...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> a major source of my current inspiration.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

By Woodstock I had lost interest in mainstream contemporary music,
though Youtube I'm discovering good stuff like The Stray Cats.

[dsi1]

On 4/16/2013 2:41 AM, Murdick wrote:
>
> Hey Andrew, I work with a 70 year old Brit. He told me that when he was a teenager the dominant music in England was Dixieland revival. That's what he started playing when he was in his early twenties. Listen to ODJB's chord changes in their tune Margie. Sounds like Beatle's changes. I think the Beatles are fabulous innovators and important musicians, but their background is clearly different from American rockers (they recorded "Red Sails In The Sunset" for christ's sake). And yes, they will be soon be forgotten just like Michael Faraday (the scientist who invented the 20th century), Buddy Bolden, and ODJB- at least in America. If I get a chance I will look up those books you mentioned. BTW, listen to Paul McCartney's extensive interview on NPR.
>

The teenage Brits of the 50s did have a different background than the
Americans but the Beatles and the rest got famous because they rejected
the music of their parents. This has always been the story of the
younger generation's music.

My guess is that the guitar oriented sounds of their early records were
mostly influenced by skiffle and the guitar instrumental bands of the
day. Of course, they would soon reject that sound too. Paul McCartney
OTOH, seemed to be a big fan of the music of his parents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMTiZaqJyL8

[thomas]

You guys ever see that video of Jimmy Page from 1957? Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tAOIQiz-8

[dsi1]

On 4/16/2013 2:43 PM, thomas wrote:
>
>
> You guys ever see that video of Jimmy Page from 1957? Here it is:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tAOIQiz-8
>

That's a crazy video. Back then, anybody could be in a band! Thank God
for the 60s. It must have been disconcerting for singers to see a kid
like Jimmy Page come into the studio to play guitar on their record.

That guitar he's playing looks looks super deluxe! Less than ten years
later, everything would change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zeza1xeWKM

[Murdick]

So you think Paul was lying when he said that Fats Waller was his favorite composer when he was in high school? And you think that "When I'm 64" is a blues tune?

[Tony Done]

> So you think Paul was lying when he said that Fats Waller was his favorite composer when he was in high school?  And you think that "When I'm 64" is a blues tune?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Not at all, I don't doubt your FW referenced and it does sound like
the kind of trad that was popular at the time. I just think that
making it jazz-centric is maybe an oversimplification of an
evolutionary process. I liked the Shadows when I was in my early
teens, but I quickly changed allegance as my musical horizons widened.
<g> I kind of regret that I wasn't more jazz-oriented in my formative
years, I may yet have a go at some Charlie Christian techniques.

[Fadosolrélamisi]

I had a resurgence of hope when this last recording came along ... but the following day I realized that they would not be coming back ... and that I would have to nurture my nostalgia of this past era ...through their recordings ...

Beautiful song and video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKdCPtDaNCM

Paul (is) and George (was) were amazing Ukulele players!

[John Nguyen]

Was it Dudley Moore in the first 20 seconds?

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 16, 10:16 pm, John Nguyen <johnnguyen5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was it Dudley Moore in the first 20 seconds?
>
>

No, that was Dudley Less.

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 16, 9:36 pm, Murdick <lutem...@aol.com> wrote:
> So you think Paul was lying when he said that Fats Waller was his favorite composer when he was in
> high school?  And you think that "When I'm 64" is a blues tune?
>

And now for something completely different...

A little humor sourced from the topic at hand:

"When John and I had just finished writing the song "She Loves You,"
we were in the parlor of the little house we lived in in Liverpool,
and John and I went next door to one of the rooms where my dad was.
And we played it — 'She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah' — and he said,
'Oh, that's very good, son. But there's just one thing. Couldn't you
sing, "She loves you, yes, yes, yes?"' He said, 'There's enough of
these Americanisms around.' And we said, 'No, sorry Dad, it's got to
be yeah, yeah, yeah.' "

Andrew

[Slogoin]

On Apr 16, 6:46 am, Murdick <lutem...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>  To quote one Physics book, "without these equations,
> the 20th century would not have happened."

What book and what equations... Maxwell's equations? Anyway, he did
a lot but so did others. Why rank them?

[dsi1]

Ha ha, I guess you could put that hairstyle on anybody and they'd look
like Dudley Moore. That's Paul and Linda - they make a rather stilted
looking pair. The great thing about Linda is that people hated her a
little less than Yoko. :-)

[Murdick]

I was just listening to the Beatles doing "Ain't She Sweet" on youtube. So how many Dixieland tunes did the Beatles have in their repertoire starting from the Quarrymen? 5, 10 a 100?

[Cactus Wren]

Next you're going to find some way to prove that Shearer was somehow behind their fabulous instrumental technique.

[Murdick]

No, I think that when you play trad jazz you have to be aware of the changes when you play a solo, and this informs your playing. My Brit friend says that Dixieland revival music competed with rock and roll in England among young people, whereas this did not happen in the US. My theory is that the creation of a group like the Beatles was an inevitable result of a more musically literate culture - much like Mozart was a product of his culture.

I remember that when I first learned the chords to a Beatle tune I thought, "hey, these guys must be playing standards." The reason I thought this was because I had been trying to play standards.

[Richard Jernigan]

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:46:28 AM UTC-5, Murdick wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:05:42 AM UTC-5, Slogoin wrote:

>
> > On Apr 16, 5:41 am, Murdick <lutem...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Michael Faraday (the scientist who invented the 20th century)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > You know, making nutty statements like this does not help make your
>
> >
>
> > point. Shearer did not invent CG pedagogy and Faraday did not invent
>
> >
>
> > the 20th centur. Being forgotten has nothing to do with the
>
> >
>
> > importance of someone's work.
>
>
>
> What do you think the 20th century would have been like without Faraday's magnetism equations? Of course they probably would have been discovered by someone else,but still, Faraday came up with the ideas first. To quote one Physics book, "without these equations, the 20th century would not have happened." As far as Shearer goes, we all know that many of his ideas were discovered independently by others. Still, there is a huge school of playing which relies on the rest stroke P. I believe Shearer was right in avoiding this trap.

Faraday discovered the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction--a varying magnetic field in proximity to a conductor induces an electrical current. It was Maxwell who wrote the equation quantifying this. He called it "Faraday's Equation" in honor of the discoverer of the effect, but it was Maxwell who discovered the mathematical form as part of a fully developed physical theory.

Faraday 's mathematical skills barely included elementary algebra. This didn't impede his remarkable record of scientific discovery and invention.

RNJ

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 4/16/2013 11:29 PM, stanleyy wrote:
> Sophomoric rubbish!
>


I'm glad someone else said what I was thinking. If I'd said it I'd
just be called an old grouch (which I am, but beside the point).I'd be
inclined to cut the production some slack thinking about the intended
audience, but...no, there are just too many inaccuracies, outright
errors--and that's leaving alone the stupendous pomposity.
This is NOT a knock on the Beatles at all, whom I love.

Steve

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 17, 3:29 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

I see your post here Steve, and it's a response to a Stanley Yates
post "Sophomoric rubbish!", but I don't see his post in the list so I
assume he removed it (I'm looking at this at the Google Groups site).
Steve, what are the inaccuracies and errors you've spotted?

Saying it's rubbish or full of errors falls short of the mark if you
don't back it up. And I'm sure you both can! That's why I'm asking.

Andrew

[Steven Bornfeld]

Mostly it's the superlatives about the Beatles "changing music
forever", singlehandedly (or 8-handedly) bringing back tonality to
modern composition, bringing harmonic complexity to popular music.
Goodall is more than entitled to "hate" (his word, I believe) Boulez,
Stockhausen, Cage, etc. for composing difficult music--he's far from
alone. But the Beatles did not introduce key modulations into popular
music. There was also something about what Bach learned from Vivaldi.
Please don't make me listen to this again!!
(Oh, I probably don't need to tell you that Stanley does NOT hate the
Beatles, but I can understand how this film might make his skin crawl a
bit).

Steve

[Che]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:03:44 PM UTC-5, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> On Apr 17, 3:29 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On 4/16/2013 11:29 PM, stanleyy wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Sophomoric rubbish!
>
> >
>
> >         I'm glad someone else said what I was thinking.  If I'd said it I'd
>
> > just be called an old grouch (which I am, but beside the point).I'd be
>
> > inclined to cut the production some slack thinking about the intended
>
> > audience, but...no, there are just too many inaccuracies, outright
>
> > errors--and that's leaving alone the stupendous pomposity.
>
> >         This is NOT a knock on the Beatles at all, whom I love.
>
> >
>
> > Steve
>
> >
>
> I see your post here Steve, and it's a response to a Stanley Yates
>
> post "Sophomoric rubbish!", but I don't see his post in the list so I
>
> assume he removed it (I'm looking at this at the Google Groups site).<

I saved it, you gotta' be fast here. Note, if you go back to that Mexican Indian
composer Mo was discussing the other day, his name escapes me at the moment, you'll find a number of deleted post. I have spend entire days removing old post.

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 17, 4:14 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>         Mostly it's the superlatives about the Beatles "changing music
> forever", singlehandedly (or 8-handedly) bringing back tonality to
> modern composition, bringing harmonic complexity to popular music.
>
>

He makes a case for this, you disagree. I ask again, what "outright
errors" and "inaccuracies"? You are stating an opinion, he makes his
case, you say he's wrong, then make your case as well.

>
>         Goodall is more than entitled to "hate" (his word, I believe) Boulez,

> Stockhausen, Cage, etc. for composing difficult music..
>
>
I don't think what he objected to is the difficulty of the music!

>
>
> But the Beatles did not introduce key modulations into popular
> music.
>
>

Did he say that? I just finished reading an interview with McCartney
where he talks about the Great American Songbook composers influencing
him, and specifically mentions modulations. I guess it's a good thing
at least Paul McCartney knows he didn't introduce key modulations into

popular music.
>
 > There was also something about what Bach learned from Vivaldi.
>

Are you saying that Bach didn't learn from Vivaldi!?!

>
> Please don't make me listen to this again!!
>

I promise you I won't, I didn't even know until now that that was even
possible.

Andrew

[Tony Done]

On 17/04/2013 10:17 PM, Murdick wrote:
So how many Dixieland tunes did the Beatles have in their repertoire
starting from the Quarrymen? 5, 10 a 100?
>

Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quarrymen

Seems to have been the kind of mix I would have expected/played myself
at that age, time and situation.

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 4/17/2013 4:40 PM, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> On Apr 17, 4:14 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Mostly it's the superlatives about the Beatles "changing music
>> forever", singlehandedly (or 8-handedly) bringing back tonality to
>> modern composition, bringing harmonic complexity to popular music.
>>
>>
> He makes a case for this, you disagree. I ask again, what "outright
> errors" and "inaccuracies"? You are stating an opinion, he makes his
> case, you say he's wrong, then make your case as well.

I don't have a "case" and this is not a court of law. My overall
impression is that Goodall would have us believe that popular music
before the Beatles had no use of harmony (well, only 3 chords)--that
previously sophisticated musical language was used only in pre-atonal
classical music, that it had been rejected by "serious" composers, and
that the Beatles more or less alone liberated popular music from musical
illiteracy, and saved classical music from the anarchists. That is the
case I believe he seems to be making; I don't think this is an accurate
representation of popular music in the 20th century. Not to discount
the influence of the Beatles on musical composition (I have no argument
that the did not), but making the case that the Beatles in some way
influenced the academy to abandon atonality is probably overstating the
case. I think there is plenty of evidence that there were plenty of
composers moving away from atonality long before the Beatles--just as
there were composers moving into microtonality and absorbing information
from the ethnomusicologists. In fact, the Beatles may have had a
greater influence in bringing eastern musical forms to modern
composition than they did in burying the second Viennese school--though
that influence is only very briefly touched on.

>>
>> Goodall is more than entitled to "hate" (his word, I believe) Boulez,
>> Stockhausen, Cage, etc. for composing difficult music..
>>
>>
> I don't think what he objected to is the difficulty of the music!

What do you think his objection was?

>>
>>
>> But the Beatles did not introduce key modulations into popular
>> music.
>>
>>
> Did he say that? I just finished reading an interview with McCartney
> where he talks about the Great American Songbook composers influencing
> him, and specifically mentions modulations. I guess it's a good thing
> at least Paul McCartney knows he didn't introduce key modulations into
> popular music.


>>
> > There was also something about what Bach learned from Vivaldi.
>>
> Are you saying that Bach didn't learn from Vivaldi!?!

I know Bach was influenced by Vivaldi--I see that Wolff writes that
"the Toccata in F major for organ, BWV 540" is "directly indebted to
the Vivaldi-style ritornello concerto...".
I may be mistaken--I remember a rather specific claim for a direct
influence. That's not the main thrust of this film (of course).
Again, I want to say that I have no quarrel with the idea that the
Beatles were extremely influential in popular and more formal music--it
would be foolish to deny that. But I still think this is a very narrow
view of popular music in the twentieth century--basically ignoring not
only Berlin, Gershwin, Porter et al, but Armstrong, Charlie Parker,
Coltrane, Ellington and others that not only changed the language and
form of popular music, but of composed formal music as well.

>>
>> Please don't make me listen to this again!!
>>
> I promise you I won't, I didn't even know until now that that was even
> possible.
>
> Andrew

Maybe I will--if time allows.

Steve
>

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 17, 5:17 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>         I don't have a "case" and this is not a court of law.
>
>

C'mon Steve...

>
>
> My overall impression is that Goodall would have us believe that popular music
> before the Beatles had no use of harmony (well, only 3 chords)--that
> previously sophisticated musical language was used only in pre-atonal
> classical music, that it had been rejected by "serious" composers, and
> that the Beatles more or less alone liberated popular music from musical
> illiteracy, and saved classical music from the anarchists.  That is the
> case I believe he seems to be making; I don't think this is an accurate
> representation of popular music in the 20th century.  Not to discount
> the influence of the Beatles on musical composition (I have no argument
> that the did not), but making the case that the Beatles in some way
> influenced the academy to abandon atonality is probably overstating the
> case.  I think there is plenty of evidence that there were plenty of
> composers moving away from atonality long before the Beatles--just as
> there were composers moving into microtonality and absorbing information
> from the ethnomusicologists.  In fact, the Beatles may have had a
> greater influence in bringing eastern musical forms to modern
> composition than they did in burying the second Viennese school--though
> that influence is only very briefly touched on.
>

You make your argument well, and that was really my point, that
throwing out comments like rubbish and inaccuracies is a waste of time
to read. Fortunately they are short of enough to not waste much
time. On the other hand, your going into detail just now was worth
reading. It all can be argued. To me the gist of the film is that
the Beatles music as a body of work is in the great category and that
they were supreme innovators. I agree with that, but have no problem
with a well reasoned disagreement.

>
> > I don't think what he objected to is the difficulty of the music!
>
>         What do you think his objection was?
>
>

In short, the abandonment of music that can speak to a large
audience.

>
> >    > There was also something about what Bach learned from Vivaldi.
>
> > Are you saying that Bach didn't learn from Vivaldi!?!
>
>         I know Bach was influenced by Vivaldi--I see that Wolff writes that
> "the Toccata in F major for organ, BWV 540"  is "directly indebted to
> the Vivaldi-style ritornello concerto..."
>
>

Vivaldi was a very direct influence. IIRC there are 17 Vivaldi
concertos that Bach arrange for keyboard, 6 for the organ, 11 others.
Again, IIRC, it was especially in learning how to organize his ideas
that he benefited from doing the work.

You heard one of them years ago when you heard my group in concert,
the G major op. 3, #3, we open with that often. It also works very
well for solo guitar, as does the op. 3, #9 in D.

>
>         Again, I want to say that I have no quarrel with the idea that the
> Beatles were extremely influential in popular and more formal music--it
> would be foolish to deny that.  But I still think this is a very narrow
> view of popular music in the twentieth century--basically ignoring not
> only Berlin, Gershwin, Porter et al, but Armstrong, Charlie Parker,
> Coltrane, Ellington and others that not only changed the language and
> form of popular music, but of composed formal music as well.
>
>

Fair enough. I'll watch again (maybe). I thought he was referring more
to the pre-Beatles pop of rock and roll.

Anyway, thanks for stepping up to the plate and taking the time to go
into this much detail.

Andrew

[dsi1]

On 4/17/2013 10:14 AM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
> Mostly it's the superlatives about the Beatles "changing music
> forever", singlehandedly (or 8-handedly) bringing back tonality to
> modern composition, bringing harmonic complexity to popular music.
> Goodall is more than entitled to "hate" (his word, I believe)
> Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage, etc. for composing difficult music--he's far
> from alone. But the Beatles did not introduce key modulations into
> popular music. There was also something about what Bach learned from
> Vivaldi. Please don't make me listen to this again!!
> (Oh, I probably don't need to tell you that Stanley does NOT hate
> the Beatles, but I can understand how this film might make his skin
> crawl a bit).
>
> Steve

About the only thing you can really say about the Beatles is that they
were a really successful music group. That's the way future generations
will see it after us boomers are dead and buried. My gut feeling is that
future generations will find the tunes goofy. Did they change music
forever? Nah.

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 4/17/2013 6:10 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> About the only thing you can really say about the Beatles is that they
> were a really successful music group. That's the way future generations
> will see it after us boomers are dead and buried. My gut feeling is that
> future generations will find the tunes goofy. Did they change music
> forever? Nah.

I can't pretend to know that. They certainly didn't end the production
of really shitty popular music.
I don't know that Gershwin changed music forever either, but I'd bet
that in 200 years his music will still be played. Beatles too.

Steve

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 4/17/2013 5:45 PM, Andrew Schulman wrote:

(big snip)

>>
>>
> Fair enough. I'll watch again (maybe). I thought he was referring more
> to the pre-Beatles pop of rock and roll.
>
> Anyway, thanks for stepping up to the plate and taking the time to go
> into this much detail.
>
> Andrew
>

Well, sure. I guess Stanley sniping wasn't very helpful. But if there
are people around here with the standing to snipe, he'd be my pick for
one of the few.
Maybe he'll elaborate; OTOH, if there really is a way to remove your
posts from google and newsgroup servers, maybe he thought better of it
and will resent my quoting him. O-:

Steve

[2cts]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:29:29 -0700 (PDT), stanleyy wrote:

> Sophomoric rubbish!

Great you drop in!

[dsi1]

On Apr 17, 2:01 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

You're on pal! I agree with you about Gershwin but I'll bet you $5 the
nobody is gonna be listening to John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

Well, future boy - who won?

[dsi1]

On Apr 17, 2:06 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

You can remove your posts on Google Groups but not on the Usenet
servers. My guess is that Google deletes the posts from their public
archives only.

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 17, 8:01 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>         I can't pretend to know that.  They certainly didn't end the production
> of really shitty popular music.
>         I don't know that Gershwin changed music forever either, but I'd bet
> that in 200 years his music will still be played.  Beatles too.
>
>

I don't think the Beatles were the start of something new, I think
they were the end of something old.

BTW, the primary music I use in the SICU in the most serious cases,
because they are the most effective, and I mention this because I know
you are interested in music as medicine, is Bach, Beatles, and
Gershwin, in that order. Lots of other things work, and it depends on
the need. For instance, Scarlatti is very useful for preventing
dysphoria, and if you know the history, that's in large part what the
music was written for. Schubert's Ständchen is very reliable. But,
B, B, and G are consistently effective and reliable.

For the staff, Here Comes The Sun is it, and therefore I don't play it
too often so that they don't grow immune to it.

Which brings up an interesting Beatle thing. They get to the last
recording, Abbey Road (yes, Let It Be was released last) and George
Harrison has what many consider the two best songs, Here Comes The Sun
and Something . There is conjecture, I think it was Everett's book,
that sped up the break-up.

Andrew

[thomas]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:40:22 PM UTC-4, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>
> He makes a case for this, you disagree. I ask again, what "outright
> errors" and "inaccuracies"? You are stating an opinion, he makes his
> case, you say he's wrong, then make your case as well.

Anyone who says the Beatles brought harmonic complexity to pop music hasn't a clue about either harmony or pop music. I take it he's never heard of Jerry Kern or Ricky Rogers or George Gershwin.

[Andrew Schulman]

I just re-watched some of it, especially the part on harmonies. He
could have been a lot clearer about that. I don't think he was
referring to the Beatles appearance and development in the 60s
contrasting to Gershwin and the other greats from earlier in the
century. He mentions the music of the 50s and it seems that by pop he
is talking about the rock and roll of that period, but it's unclear.
Given his background it can't be that he's unaware of the other music.

As far as "sophomoric", keep in mind the intended audience. This is a
show and a series for the "general audience". And for musically
sophisticated music people his putdowns of the 20th century "serious"
music could only rankle.

I still enjoyed the presentation, keeping these things in mind. For
those in the know, the Beatles are certainly the greatest Dixieland
band of all time.

Andrew

[Che]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:14:05 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2:06 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>

> You can remove your posts on Google Groups but not on the Usenet
>
> servers. My guess is that Google deletes the posts from their public
>
> archives only.<

Very true. I saw that early on. It explains my use of different email accounts
and screen names over the years. I wanted to specifically thwart Usenet from tracing my sequential post in threads. You can try and follow them until you end up here:

http://tinyurl.com/22b3t

[Fadosolrélamisi]

It's Rock and Roll Music appreciation 101 ...
What really made the Beatles was their voices, their particular beautifully atypical voices, listen to any cover of one of their song by any singer ... they can never be as good as ...
A voice is a voice, and nothing else but a voice ... of course when their voices were sustained by their music is music and nothing else than music ... then it could only become a winning combination! Instrumental Beatles is the worst of the worst and border elevator musac ... or back ground music to do some shopping at the grocery store.

[Fadosolrélamisi]

Their voices ... and ... their looks!

[thomas]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:16:42 PM UTC-4, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>
> For
> those in the know, the Beatles are certainly the greatest Dixieland
> band of all time.

I especially like those styrofoam boaters they wear.

[thomas]

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:38:41 AM UTC-4, Fadosolrélamisi wrote:
>
> What really made the Beatles was their voices, their particular beautifully atypical voices, listen to any cover of one of their song by any singer ... they can never be as good as ...
>
> A voice is a voice, and nothing else but a voice ... of course when their voices were sustained by their music is music and nothing else than music ... then it could only become a winning combination! Instrumental Beatles is the worst of the worst and border elevator musac ... or back ground music to do some shopping at the grocery store.>

Excellent observation. You can't have a great rock band without a great singer, and the Beatles had two of them. Listening to the Beatle's instrumental tracks without the vocals shows that they were competent but nothing special without those voices.

[Murdick]

Thomas, I think they are talking about bringing nice chord changes to popular rock music. And, yes, they did this. I would bet that there are about 10 or 12 Beatle tunes that will be around in 100 years.

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 4/17/2013 9:42 PM, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:01 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> I can't pretend to know that. They certainly didn't end the production
>> of really shitty popular music.
>> I don't know that Gershwin changed music forever either, but I'd bet
>> that in 200 years his music will still be played. Beatles too.
>>
>>
> I don't think the Beatles were the start of something new, I think
> they were the end of something old.
>
> BTW, the primary music I use in the SICU in the most serious cases,
> because they are the most effective, and I mention this because I know
> you are interested in music as medicine, is Bach, Beatles, and
> Gershwin, in that order. Lots of other things work, and it depends on
> the need. For instance, Scarlatti is very useful for preventing
> dysphoria, and if you know the history, that's in large part what the

> music was written for. Schubert's St�ndchen is very reliable. But,

> B, B, and G are consistently effective and reliable.
>
> For the staff, Here Comes The Sun is it, and therefore I don't play it
> too often so that they don't grow immune to it.
>
> Which brings up an interesting Beatle thing. They get to the last
> recording, Abbey Road (yes, Let It Be was released last) and George
> Harrison has what many consider the two best songs, Here Comes The Sun
> and Something . There is conjecture, I think it was Everett's book,
> that sped up the break-up.
>
> Andrew
>

I know many consider George's songs on Abbey Road (esp. "Something") as
the best on the album. But--about overplaying them--you're right. What
did it for me (and I love Sinatra) is when he recorded "Something". It
sounds like an imitation of Joe Piscopo.

Steve

[Steven Bornfeld]

Screw that. Recommend some stocks!

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 18, 10:51 am, thomas <drthomasfbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent observation. You can't have a great rock band without a great singer, and the Beatles had
> two of them. Listening to the Beatle's instrumental tracks without the vocals shows that they were
> competent but nothing special without those voices.
>
>

Agreed, John and Paul were incredibly good singers. They were good
instrumentalists in the beginning, kept getting better, although even
by the time they did "12-Bar Original" which never made it onto Rubber
Soul the the voices were still it. By the time they got to Abbey Road
the playing was stellar, but as mentioned already, that was the end of
the road for the Beatles. Quite a bit before that though Ringo was
one of the best, arguably the best, song drummers ever.

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 18, 12:00 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>         I know many consider George's songs on Abbey Road (esp. "Something") as
> the best on the album.  But--about overplaying them--you're right.  What
> did it for me (and I love Sinatra) is when he recorded "Something".  It
> sounds like an imitation of Joe Piscopo.
>
>

Sinatra called it "the greatest love song of the past 50 years".
Here's George, "It has probably got a range of five notes, which fits
most singers' needs best. When I wrote it, in my mind I heard Ray
Charles singing it, and he did do it some years later. At the time I
wasn't particularly thrilled that Frank Sinatra did Something. I'm
more thrilled now than I was then. I wasn't really into Frank - he was
the generation before me. I was more interested when Smokey Robinson
did it and when James Brown did it. But I'm very pleased now,
whoever's done it. I realise that the sign of a good song is when it
has lots of cover versions."

Andrew

[Steven Bornfeld]

Damn--I can't even imagine James Brown singing "Something"--that I'd
like to hear!

[Paul Magnussen]

dsi1 wrote:

> About the only thing you can really say about the Beatles is that they
> were a really successful music group. That's the way future generations
> will see it after us boomers are dead and buried. My gut feeling is that
> future generations will find the tunes goofy. Did they change music
> forever? Nah.

They certainly changed Pop music forever; if you dispute that, my bet
would be that you don't remember it before them, or at any rate not clearly.

Name anything previous that had rhythmic shifts like "We Can Work It
Out", or that resembled, even remotely, "I Am the Walrus" -- to take
just two examples.

I'm not saying that were necessarily BETTER than anything previous (what
could match "Mad Dogs and Englishmen"?)

But change things they definitely did.

Paul Magnussen

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 4/18/2013 12:42 PM, Paul Magnussen wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>
>> About the only thing you can really say about the Beatles is that they
>> were a really successful music group. That's the way future
>> generations will see it after us boomers are dead and buried. My gut
>> feeling is that future generations will find the tunes goofy. Did they
>> change music forever? Nah.
>
> They certainly changed Pop music forever; if you dispute that, my bet
> would be that you don't remember it before them, or at any rate not
> clearly.
>
> Name anything previous that had rhythmic shifts like "We Can Work It
> Out", or that resembled, even remotely, "I Am the Walrus" -- to take
> just two examples.

And what since has sounded like "I Am the Walrus"? Well, maybe half of
ELO's output, but other than that? ;-)

Steve

[Paul Magnussen]

Steven Bornfeld wrote:

>> Name anything previous that had rhythmic shifts like "We Can Work It
>> Out", or that resembled, even remotely, "I Am the Walrus" -- to take
>> just two examples.
>
> And what since has sounded like "I Am the Walrus"? Well, maybe half
> of ELO's output, but other than that? ;-)

That's not the point; or not my point, anyway.

They broke the barriers; they showed record-company executives, in
particular, that Pop could be more than two-minute singles, and people
would still buy it.

Once the barriers were down, it opened the way for all sorts of other
ideas, and other people.

Paul Magnussen

[Steven Bornfeld]

So, in a way, they made it acceptable to release hip-hop?

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 18, 2:57 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> So, in a way, they made it acceptable to release hip-hop?
>

Don't be cruel.

Oh wait, that was Elvis...

Andrew

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 18, 1:48 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>         And what since has sounded like "I Am the Walrus"?  Well, maybe half of
> ELO's output, but other than that?  ;-)
>

Name a few, and this is NOT a challenge! I don't know that
repertoire. When the Beatles broke up in 1970 I really headed away
from the rock - or whatever you want to call it - genre and I'd like
to listen to some things contemporaneous to that music.

Andrew

[dsi1]

I don't want to argue the point about what would have happened if
something didn't occur. The reality might be that the flapping of a
butterfly's wing in China might have changed pop music forever.

My point is that how music is experienced on a personal and societal
level is dependent on many things. At the time, the Beatles fulfilled a
need in our culture and more specifically, our generation. We wanted to
hear something new and they were there at the right time and place. More
than likely, future generations won't find what they need in the
Beatles' music. I have no doubt that there will be new fans of the Fab
Four's music as it journeys throughout the ages but they don't have
exclusive rights to that honor.

I see no reason to get hooked on those lads from Liverpool yet another
time. By my count, that's happened 5 times. There's so much new music
going around that there's little time to linger the past, although it
does make me smile to hear a group that pays homage to the music of the
Beatles.

I saw the Joe Cocker film in 1970, along with "True Grit." I knew
nothing about Joe Cocker and neither of those titles seemed very
promising but that's what I did to kill time when I was 16. As it goes,
I enjoyed both of those movies and stayed on to watch MDAE twice.
Sitting in that nearly empty movie theater, I was blown away by what I
heard and saw.

Being an impressionable lad, the image of Leon Russel playing that
beautiful guitar stuck I my brain. Russel's guitar might have not been
"strictly in tune" but after that, I wanted to have one of those guitars
and by gosh, I do now. :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8IvCyw_aTQ

[Andrew Schulman]

On Apr 18, 4:51 pm, dsi1 <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
> At the time, the Beatles fulfilled a
> need in our culture and more specifically, our generation. We wanted to
> hear something new and they were there at the right time and place.
>

That's a great point, and said by them in various interviews.

>
>
> More than likely, future generations won't find what they need in the
> Beatles' music.
>
>

Here we disagree, and it brings up the whole issue of what is a
classic, and what we could describe in a loose way as classical
music. There are those, I'm one but there are many especially in the
music world, that think they've already passed the test. They have
been around now for 50 years and the numbers of people who count the
Beatles music as part of the canon are growing. Time will tell in the
long run, but I am also willing to make the bet with you. Let's set a
date. April 18, 2113, the winner buys lunch, and it will be at the
favorite restaurant on my island or yours, depending on who collects
the cash.
>
> I saw the Joe Cocker film in 1970...MDAE twice.

> Sitting in that nearly empty movie theater, I was blown away by what I
> heard and saw.
>

Yes, he was one of a number of musicians from that time that were
fantastic in what they presented and how they presented it.

Andrew

[John Sorell]

Steven Bornfeld <dentalt...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:kkp5ai$203$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 4/17/2013 9:42 PM, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 8:01 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>> I can't pretend to know that. They certainly didn't end
>>> the production
>>> of really shitty popular music.
>>> I don't know that Gershwin changed music forever either,
>>> but I'd bet
>>> that in 200 years his music will still be played. Beatles too.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think the Beatles were the start of something new, I think
>> they were the end of something old.
>>
>> BTW, the primary music I use in the SICU in the most serious cases,
>> because they are the most effective, and I mention this because I
>> know you are interested in music as medicine, is Bach, Beatles, and
>> Gershwin, in that order. Lots of other things work, and it depends
>> on the need. For instance, Scarlatti is very useful for preventing
>> dysphoria, and if you know the history, that's in large part what the

>> music was written for. Schubert's Ständchen is very reliable. But,

>> B, B, and G are consistently effective and reliable.
>>
>> For the staff, Here Comes The Sun is it, and therefore I don't play
>> it too often so that they don't grow immune to it.
>>
>> Which brings up an interesting Beatle thing. They get to the last
>> recording, Abbey Road (yes, Let It Be was released last) and George
>> Harrison has what many consider the two best songs, Here Comes The
>> Sun and Something . There is conjecture, I think it was Everett's
>> book, that sped up the break-up.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>
>
> I know many consider George's songs on Abbey Road (esp.
> "Something") as
> the best on the album. But--about overplaying them--you're right.
> What did it for me (and I love Sinatra) is when he recorded
> "Something". It sounds like an imitation of Joe Piscopo.
>
> Steve
>

"Thumb...Chick"...SNL several years ago.

John

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 4/18/2013 6:05 PM, John Sorell wrote:
>
> "Thumb...Chick"...SNL several years ago.
>
> John
>

Sometimes it seems as if he's about the only SNL alumnus that isn't
floating out in the ozone somewhere. I thought he was really talented.

Steve

[dsi1]

On 4/18/2013 11:39 AM, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> On Apr 18, 4:51 pm, dsi1 <ds...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>> At the time, the Beatles fulfilled a
>> need in our culture and more specifically, our generation. We wanted to
>> hear something new and they were there at the right time and place.
>>
> That's a great point, and said by them in various interviews.
>>
>>
>> More than likely, future generations won't find what they need in the
>> Beatles' music.
>>
>>
> Here we disagree, and it brings up the whole issue of what is a
> classic, and what we could describe in a loose way as classical
> music. There are those, I'm one but there are many especially in the
> music world, that think they've already passed the test. They have
> been around now for 50 years and the numbers of people who count the
> Beatles music as part of the canon are growing. Time will tell in the
> long run, but I am also willing to make the bet with you. Let's set a
> date. April 18, 2113, the winner buys lunch, and it will be at the
> favorite restaurant on my island or yours, depending on who collects
> the cash.

You're on pal! By that time, I expect that all that will be left of me
will be a brain in a jar kept alive by artificial means. If you're able
to, please KILL ME!!!

>>
>> I saw the Joe Cocker film in 1970...MDAE twice.
>> Sitting in that nearly empty movie theater, I was blown away by what I
>> heard and saw.
>>
> Yes, he was one of a number of musicians from that time that were
> fantastic in what they presented and how they presented it.

Poor Joe. Leon Russell just took over his tour and it snowballed into a
monster 3-ring circus. This is great for us but maybe not that good of
an experience for Cocker.

>
> Andrew
>

[Tony Done]

On Apr 19, 2:02 am, Andrew Schulman <and...@abacaproductions.com>
wrote:

I'm not a Beatles fan, but I do agree that they had some exceptional
talent between them. However, I've never thought of Ringo has anything
special has a drummer. Charlie Watts, OTOH, <g> with his jazz
background and interests, was the glue that held the Stones sound
together. Funny how boudaries get blurred eh?