OT: Eleanor Rugby

[guypers]

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:39:06 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:

> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles

That Eleanor Rugby was a rough player.

[Ima Raducansocanu]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:39:06 AM UTC-5, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles

That's ONE overrated song... I don't like the sound of the violin and not a big fan of chamber pop (or chamber classical) in general. It might have been daring and revolutionary back in the day... but honestly that doesn't make it lovable. I actually prefer some of other McCartney solo songs (Yesterday, Blackbird) with the Beatles.

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:25:30 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:39:06 AM UTC-5, gap...@gmail.com wrote:

> > https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles

> That's ONE overrated song... I don't like the sound of the violin and not a big fan of chamber pop (or chamber classical) in general. It might have been daring and revolutionary back in the day... but honestly that doesn't make it lovable.

Not overrated at all IMO. It's McCartney at his best, telling a full story in three minutes full of evocative imagery. IIRC, George Martin pushed for the strings, contrary to McCartney's wishes. McCartney finally conceded on the condition that the strings had "bite," like Bernard Hermann's arrangements for "Psycho" or "Fahrenheit 451."

> I actually prefer some of other McCartney solo songs (Yesterday, Blackbird) with the Beatles.

So the syrupy strings on "Yesterday" don't bother you, but the darker sound on "Rigby" does. Hmm...

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 19/10/2021 19.25, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:39:06 AM UTC-5, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
>> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles
> That's ONE overrated song... I don't like the sound of the violin and not a big fan of chamber pop (or chamber classical) in general.

I love those strings.

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

--
“We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t
have, and we shouldn’t have followed him. We shouldn’t have listened to
him, and we can’t let that happen ever again”.
-- Nikki Haley

[The Iceberg]

On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 17:40:51 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 19.25, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:39:06 AM UTC-5, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles
> > That's ONE overrated song... I don't like the sound of the violin and not a big fan of chamber pop (or chamber classical) in general.
> I love those strings.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMTFTzbybOE

yes but isn't this version slightly better?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsYim8lsLI

[Ima Raducansocanu]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 11:35:53 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:25:30 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:39:06 AM UTC-5, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles
>
> > That's ONE overrated song... I don't like the sound of the violin and not a big fan of chamber pop (or chamber classical) in general. It might have been daring and revolutionary back in the day... but honestly that doesn't make it lovable.
> Not overrated at all IMO. It's McCartney at his best, telling a full story in three minutes full of evocative imagery.

I never cared for the lyrics. That's one reason I am not a huge fan of Beatles (or Dylan)… if I want good lyrics, I will go read some poetry by Edgar Allan Poe or Mark Twain. For me the instrumental sections in the song outshine the lyrics anytime... that's one of the reason I like Led Zeppelin, Yes, Pink Floyd etc. In fact I don't care for the latter Pink Floyd whiny lyrics (in Animals, The Wall)… if you want to make political statements, go join politics.

>IIRC, George Martin pushed for the strings, contrary to McCartney's wishes. McCartney finally conceded on the condition that the strings had "bite," like Bernard Hermann's arrangements for "Psycho" or "Fahrenheit 451."

Yeah I know George Martin is considered the 5th Beatle... Beatles fans seem to love him... call him 5th Beatle etc... I don't really care for his contributions... I think he should left the Beatles alone... I think The Beach Boys (Pet Sounds) and The Bee Gees (Odessa) had better orchestrations but they had . I don't mind orchestrations if they are fully integrated into the song and very much integral to the songs... to me a lot of orchestrations (and chamber pieces) in Beatles' seem more like adornments.

The one full orchestration based song they did (Good Night) was crap.... and syrupy as you say.

> > I actually prefer some of other McCartney solo songs (Yesterday, Blackbird) with the Beatles.
> So the syrupy strings on "Yesterday" don't bother you, but the darker sound on "Rigby" does. Hmm...

The acoustic guitar distracts me from those strings. And I don't mind a bit of syrup... once in a while ;-) Also I don't care for whether the song is dark or bright... these days too many reviewers (mostly hipsters) use words like "dark", "raw", "ironical" to praise the songs... I find it hilarious... why does it have to be dark, raw or ironical to be good?

[Ima Raducansocanu]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:02:32 PM UTC-5, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 11:35:53 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:25:30 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:39:06 AM UTC-5, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles
> >
> > > That's ONE overrated song... I don't like the sound of the violin and not a big fan of chamber pop (or chamber classical) in general. It might have been daring and revolutionary back in the day... but honestly that doesn't make it lovable.
> > Not overrated at all IMO. It's McCartney at his best, telling a full story in three minutes full of evocative imagery.
> I never cared for the lyrics. That's one reason I am not a huge fan of Beatles (or Dylan)… if I want good lyrics, I will go read some poetry by Edgar Allan Poe or Mark Twain. For me the instrumental sections in the song outshine the lyrics anytime... that's one of the reason I like Led Zeppelin, Yes, Pink Floyd etc. In fact I don't care for the latter Pink Floyd whiny lyrics (in Animals, The Wall)… if you want to make political statements, go join politics.
> >IIRC, George Martin pushed for the strings, contrary to McCartney's wishes. McCartney finally conceded on the condition that the strings had "bite," like Bernard Hermann's arrangements for "Psycho" or "Fahrenheit 451."
> Yeah I know George Martin is considered the 5th Beatle... Beatles fans seem to love him... call him 5th Beatle etc... I don't really care for his contributions... I think he should left the Beatles alone... I think The Beach Boys (Pet Sounds) and The Bee Gees (Odessa) had better orchestrations but they had .

an orchestral mind or approach to their songs which the Beatles did not.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Size matters. Small is beautiful. Besides, you can "see" the arrangement
on that keyboard.

[Ima Raducansocanu]

Yesterday is a vastly different song as well... its the acoustic guitar leading the melody... the strings on the background.... and are not trying to choke you in your sleep like the ones on Eleanor Rigby... I am not saying Eleanor Rigby is crap... its just musically I don't find it special. Yesterday is not spectacular either but it is at least pleasant.

For me their best song with progressive (and classical) tendencies are A Day In The Life and All You Need is Love (which gets undeserved hate these days because of its hippy lyrics). I mean musically they are astonishing and none of the other Beatles songs can match the grandiosity of those two songs.

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:02:32 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 11:35:53 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:25:30 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:39:06 AM UTC-5, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles
> >
> > > That's ONE overrated song... I don't like the sound of the violin and not a big fan of chamber pop (or chamber classical) in general. It might have been daring and revolutionary back in the day... but honestly that doesn't make it lovable.

> > Not overrated at all IMO. It's McCartney at his best, telling a full story in three minutes full of evocative imagery.

> I never cared for the lyrics. That's one reason I am not a huge fan of Beatles (or Dylan)… if I want good lyrics, I will go read some poetry by Edgar Allan Poe or Mark Twain. For me the instrumental sections in the song outshine the lyrics anytime... that's one of the reason I like Led Zeppelin, Yes, Pink Floyd etc. In fact I don't care for the latter Pink Floyd whiny lyrics (in Animals, The Wall)… if you want to make political statements, go join politics.

It all depends on how it's done. You can make "statements" without being ham-handed about it. But if you are "anti-lyrics," what can I say? It seems like an odd POV to me.

> >IIRC, George Martin pushed for the strings, contrary to McCartney's wishes. McCartney finally conceded on the condition that the strings had "bite," like Bernard Hermann's arrangements for "Psycho" or "Fahrenheit 451."

> Yeah I know George Martin is considered the 5th Beatle... Beatles fans seem to love him... call him 5th Beatle etc... I don't really care for his contributions... I think he should left the Beatles alone... I think The Beach Boys (Pet Sounds) and The Bee Gees (Odessa) had better orchestrations but they had . I don't mind orchestrations if they are fully integrated into the song and very much integral to the songs... to me a lot of orchestrations (and chamber pieces) in Beatles' seem more like adornments.

I never thought he was a 5th Beatle, but his formal music training was valuable to the band. When one of the group was looking for a certain sound but not how to achieve it, he could help by suggesting instrumentation and arrangements even if he didn't do them himself. Engineers like Geoff Emerick or Ken Scott also were important but get shortchanged by history.

And I hate the fucking Beach Boys.

> The one full orchestration based song they did (Good Night) was crap.... and syrupy as you say.

> > > I actually prefer some of other McCartney solo songs (Yesterday, Blackbird) with the Beatles.

> > So the syrupy strings on "Yesterday" don't bother you, but the darker sound on "Rigby" does. Hmm...

> The acoustic guitar distracts me from those strings. And I don't mind a bit of syrup... once in a while ;-) Also I don't care for whether the song is dark or bright...

> these days too many reviewers (mostly hipsters) use words like "dark", "raw", "ironical" to praise the songs... I find it hilarious... why does it have to be dark, raw or ironical to be good?

It doesn't. I like the syrupy strings on "Yesterday" too. :)

I'm using the term here purely in reference to the sound, as we both used it in describing the overall tone of "With the Beatles." But of course the dark orchestration does match up well to the lyrics on "Eleanor Rigby."

[Ima Raducansocanu]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:17:02 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:02:32 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 11:35:53 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:25:30 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:39:06 AM UTC-5, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles
> > >
> > > > That's ONE overrated song... I don't like the sound of the violin and not a big fan of chamber pop (or chamber classical) in general. It might have been daring and revolutionary back in the day... but honestly that doesn't make it lovable.
>
> > > Not overrated at all IMO. It's McCartney at his best, telling a full story in three minutes full of evocative imagery.
>
> > I never cared for the lyrics. That's one reason I am not a huge fan of Beatles (or Dylan)… if I want good lyrics, I will go read some poetry by Edgar Allan Poe or Mark Twain. For me the instrumental sections in the song outshine the lyrics anytime... that's one of the reason I like Led Zeppelin, Yes, Pink Floyd etc. In fact I don't care for the latter Pink Floyd whiny lyrics (in Animals, The Wall)… if you want to make political statements, go join politics.
> It all depends on how it's done. You can make "statements" without being ham-handed about it. But if you are "anti-lyrics," what can I say? It seems like an odd POV to me.

I am not anti-lyrics. I don't think lyrics define the quality of a song. A brilliantly arranged song with crap lyrics beats great lyrics with boring/crap instrumentation any day. Its just a preference... It is also possible you have great lyrics and instrumentation... A Day In The Life is a good example. Also, I feel most critics go for the easiest (to understand) lyrics and don't get abstract lyrics (and hence denounce the lyrics to songs like Stairway To Heaven, Roundabout etc. as crap).

> > >IIRC, George Martin pushed for the strings, contrary to McCartney's wishes. McCartney finally conceded on the condition that the strings had "bite," like Bernard Hermann's arrangements for "Psycho" or "Fahrenheit 451."
>
> > Yeah I know George Martin is considered the 5th Beatle... Beatles fans seem to love him... call him 5th Beatle etc... I don't really care for his contributions... I think he should left the Beatles alone... I think The Beach Boys (Pet Sounds) and The Bee Gees (Odessa) had better orchestrations but they had . I don't mind orchestrations if they are fully integrated into the song and very much integral to the songs... to me a lot of orchestrations (and chamber pieces) in Beatles' seem more like adornments.
> I never thought he was a 5th Beatle, but his formal music training was valuable to the band.

Yes, may be... I think it would have actually helped to have a 5th Beatle... a talented session keyboardist would have helped sound some of their latter songs (Sun King a fine example... apart from Good Night and many other average ones). A good mellotron player would have definitely helped... most of their orchestral-oriented songs called for it. They did use the mellotron in several songs (most notable Strawberry Fields Forever - McCartney played it).

>When one of the group was looking for a certain sound but not how to achieve it, he could help by suggesting instrumentation and arrangements even if he didn't do them himself. Engineers like Geoff Emerick or Ken Scott also were important but get shortchanged by history.
>
> And I hate the fucking Beach Boys.

Now, that is just a knee-jerk reaction because Beach Boys get compared to The Beatles. I think Pet Sounds is one of the most brilliantly conceived albums of all time. And I don't mind their earlier surf rock stuff too... But they had a short peak in the mid to late 60s and it was literally just one album and that was Pet Sounds and the Good Vibrations single.

> > The one full orchestration based song they did (Good Night) was crap.... and syrupy as you say.
>
> > > > I actually prefer some of other McCartney solo songs (Yesterday, Blackbird) with the Beatles.
>
> > > So the syrupy strings on "Yesterday" don't bother you, but the darker sound on "Rigby" does. Hmm...
>
> > The acoustic guitar distracts me from those strings. And I don't mind a bit of syrup... once in a while ;-) Also I don't care for whether the song is dark or bright...
>
> > these days too many reviewers (mostly hipsters) use words like "dark", "raw", "ironical" to praise the songs... I find it hilarious... why does it have to be dark, raw or ironical to be good?
> It doesn't. I like the syrupy strings on "Yesterday" too. :)
>
> I'm using the term here purely in reference to the sound, as we both used it in describing the overall tone of "With the Beatles." But of course the dark orchestration does match up well to the lyrics on "Eleanor Rigby."

Yeah I get your point. Speaking of which Every Breath You Take is "ironically" a "dark" song about a stalker... I hate it regardless.

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:31:37 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:17:02 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:02:32 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:

> > And I hate the fucking Beach Boys.

> Now, that is just a knee-jerk reaction because Beach Boys get compared to The Beatles. I think Pet Sounds is one of the most brilliantly conceived albums of all time. And I don't mind their earlier surf rock stuff too... But they had a short peak in the mid to late 60s and it was literally just one album and that was Pet Sounds and the Good Vibrations single.

It's not a knee-jerk reaction. You're talking as if I've never heard their stuff. Their music just does nothing for me. I've never understood why they're mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles. At least with the Stones, I get that.

Worse yet, Brian Wilson regards himself as a genius based on a very small body of meaningful work.

> > I'm using the term here purely in reference to the sound, as we both used it in describing the overall tone of "With the Beatles." But of course the dark orchestration does match up well to the lyrics on "Eleanor Rigby."

> Yeah I get your point. Speaking of which Every Breath You Take is "ironically" a "dark" song about a stalker... I hate it regardless.

There are two good reasons for that: Sting wrote it and Sting sang it.

[Ima Raducansocanu]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:58:50 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:31:37 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:17:02 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:02:32 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
>
> > > And I hate the fucking Beach Boys.
>
> > Now, that is just a knee-jerk reaction because Beach Boys get compared to The Beatles. I think Pet Sounds is one of the most brilliantly conceived albums of all time. And I don't mind their earlier surf rock stuff too... But they had a short peak in the mid to late 60s and it was literally just one album and that was Pet Sounds and the Good Vibrations single.
> It's not a knee-jerk reaction. You're talking as if I've never heard their stuff. Their music just does nothing for me.

Not even Pet Sounds? If yes? then you might want to given it a fresh listen. I used to think it was ordinary, childish, '60s sounding and boring for a long time... until I finally got what Brian Wilson was up to.... he wasn't making pop or rock music with that album... it was something else... a creation in his own mind.... the way he used the session musicians playing a shitload of different unconventional instruments (just look up the credits)... it was a modern classical masterpiece... sort of what Moondog was doing with his brand of jazz.... just really not usual at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Sounds#Personnel

string bass, bicycle horn, sleigh bells, bells, beverage cup, timpani, glockenspiel, temple blocks, vibraphone, harpsichord, tack piano, accordion, Coca-Cola cans, clarinet, flute, guiro, English horn, bass trombone, bass harmonica, ukulele, Electro-Theremin... just to list of a few of them.

Just listen to this song (You Still Believe In Me)... does this sound pop or rock to you? It is not even classical sounding... it is something only someone could have dreamt in their sleep and decided to put it on tape. In fact the whole album is dream-like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSoM2sJ4N1M&list=PLj5TmO4kroQH4XM8P3JavV0p7Gtnno1E2&index=2

These are the instruments on this particular song alone!
Hal Blaine – bicycle horn, finger cymbals
Glen Campbell – double-tracked 12-string electric lead guitars
Al de Lory – harpsichord
Steve Douglas – acoustic grand piano
Bill Green – contra-clarinet
Jim Horn – clarinet
Plas Johnson – clarinet
Carol Kaye – electric bass
Barney Kessel – double-tracked 12-string electric mando-guitars
Jay Migliori – bass clarinet
Lyle Ritz – upright bass
Julius Wechter – bicycle bell, timpani

> I've never understood why they're mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles. At least with the Stones, I get that.
>
> Worse yet, Brian Wilson regards himself as a genius based on a very small body of meaningful work.

Well he was a genius until he went insane. He should have quit with Pet Sounds... sometimes you reach the peak and it is all downhill from there.

> > > I'm using the term here purely in reference to the sound, as we both used it in describing the overall tone of "With the Beatles." But of course the dark orchestration does match up well to the lyrics on "Eleanor Rigby."
>
> > Yeah I get your point. Speaking of which Every Breath You Take is "ironically" a "dark" song about a stalker... I hate it regardless.
> There are two good reasons for that: Sting wrote it and Sting sang it.

LOL... tell that to Whisper :)))

[Ima Raducansocanu]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:58:50 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:31:37 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:17:02 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:02:32 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
>
> > > And I hate the fucking Beach Boys.
>
> > Now, that is just a knee-jerk reaction because Beach Boys get compared to The Beatles. I think Pet Sounds is one of the most brilliantly conceived albums of all time. And I don't mind their earlier surf rock stuff too... But they had a short peak in the mid to late 60s and it was literally just one album and that was Pet Sounds and the Good Vibrations single.
> It's not a knee-jerk reaction. You're talking as if I've never heard their stuff. Their music just does nothing for me. I've never understood why they're mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles. At least with the Stones, I get that.

Well, I don't think Beach Boys should be compared to Stones or Beatles... they are vastly different... they were not really rock music... their earlier surf rock predated the mid 60s rock music of Beatles, Yardbirds, Who and Stones (and instead owes a lot to the likes of Link Wray, Duane Eddy, The Ventures, The Shadows , Dick Dale etc.) and the latter brand of "classical pop" of Pet Sounds was not even in the same planet as what Beatles, Stones and other rock bands were producing.

[joh]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 7:02:32 PM UTC+2, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 11:35:53 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:25:30 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:39:06 AM UTC-5, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles
> >
> > > That's ONE overrated song... I don't like the sound of the violin and not a big fan of chamber pop (or chamber classical) in general. It might have been daring and revolutionary back in the day... but honestly that doesn't make it lovable.
> > Not overrated at all IMO. It's McCartney at his best, telling a full story in three minutes full of evocative imagery.
> I never cared for the lyrics. That's one reason I am not a huge fan of Beatles (or Dylan)… if I want good lyrics, I will go read some poetry by Edgar Allan Poe or Mark Twain. For me the instrumental sections in the song outshine the lyrics anytime... that's one of the reason I like Led Zeppelin, Yes, Pink Floyd etc. In fact I don't care for the latter Pink Floyd whiny lyrics (in Animals, The Wall)… if you want to make political statements, go join politics.

or a tennis usenet group of course

[Ima Raducansocanu]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 4:40:20 PM UTC-5, joh wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 7:02:32 PM UTC+2, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 11:35:53 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:25:30 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:39:06 AM UTC-5, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles
> > >
> > > > That's ONE overrated song... I don't like the sound of the violin and not a big fan of chamber pop (or chamber classical) in general. It might have been daring and revolutionary back in the day... but honestly that doesn't make it lovable.
> > > Not overrated at all IMO. It's McCartney at his best, telling a full story in three minutes full of evocative imagery.
> > I never cared for the lyrics. That's one reason I am not a huge fan of Beatles (or Dylan)… if I want good lyrics, I will go read some poetry by Edgar Allan Poe or Mark Twain. For me the instrumental sections in the song outshine the lyrics anytime... that's one of the reason I like Led Zeppelin, Yes, Pink Floyd etc. In fact I don't care for the latter Pink Floyd whiny lyrics (in Animals, The Wall)… if you want to make political statements, go join politics.
> or a tennis usenet group of course

lol, yeah

[jdeluise]

Ima Raducansocanu <zepf...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 11:35:53 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:25:30 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:39:06 AM UTC-5, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles
>>
>> > That's ONE overrated song... I don't like the sound of the violin
>> > and not a big fan of chamber pop (or chamber classical) in
>> > general. It might have been daring and revolutionary back in the
>> > day... but honestly that doesn't make it lovable.
>> Not overrated at all IMO. It's McCartney at his best, telling a full
>> story in three minutes full of evocative imagery.
>
> I never cared for the lyrics. That's one reason I am not a huge fan of
> Beatles (or Dylan)… if I want good lyrics, I will go read some poetry
> by Edgar Allan Poe or Mark Twain. For me the instrumental sections in
> the song outshine the lyrics anytime... that's one of the reason I
> like Led Zeppelin, Yes, Pink Floyd etc. In fact I don't care for the
> latter Pink Floyd whiny lyrics (in Animals, The Wall)… if you want to
> make political statements, go join politics.

If the main distinguishing feature of a song is its lyrics then yes, I'd
say it's not much of a song. And I'd agree there is very little else
that stands out about "Eleanor Rigby". Mediocre, whiny and repetitive
singing filled with la-la-las.

[Gracchus]

Odd that you weigh in on a thread like this after openly admitting you're heavily biased against all Beatles music. It would be like me barging into a Grateful Dead discussion and pretending to assess each track in their catalogue with an even hand. Raja at least is presenting his impressions in good faith whether I agree with them or not.

[jdeluise]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:


>
>
> Odd that you weigh in on a thread like this after openly admitting
> you're heavily biased against all Beatles music.

Oh? Does that make my opinion any less valid? Or you are implying that
I don't actually believe what I wrote, or haven't heard the music? Is
that something I often do? There are plenty of threads here about a
variety of books, movies and music which I've never read, seen or heard
that I haven't commented on. But I am familiar with this one.

> It would be like me barging into a Grateful Dead discussion and
> pretending to assess each track in their catalogue with an even
> hand. Raja at least is presenting his impressions in good faith
> whether I agree with them or not.

Why do you imply I wrote it in bad faith? For example, I haven't come
in here claiming to be a huge fan of the Beatles yet somehow
simultaneously hate all of their songs and point out all of their
personal flaws, like Whisper has done with Federer. No, I have openly
stated I generally find the Beatles overrated. Where did I say I hate
the Beatles? Where did I say I hate all of their music? If this were
about "The Fool on the Hill" for instance, a song I do like, I would
have written something completely different.

Let me ask you this Gracchus, why do you seem to take personal offense
at flippant remarks about the Beatles? Are you related to one of them
or something?

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 7:41:39 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:

> > Odd that you weigh in on a thread like this after openly admitting
> > you're heavily biased against all Beatles music.

> Oh? Does that make my opinion any less valid? Or you are implying that
> I don't actually believe what I wrote, or haven't heard the music? Is
> that something I often do? There are plenty of threads here about a
> variety of books, movies and music which I've never read, seen or heard
> that I haven't commented on. But I am familiar with this one.

> > It would be like me barging into a Grateful Dead discussion and
> > pretending to assess each track in their catalogue with an even
> > hand. Raja at least is presenting his impressions in good faith
> > whether I agree with them or not.

> Why do you imply I wrote it in bad faith? For example, I haven't come
> in here claiming to be a huge fan of the Beatles yet somehow
> simultaneously hate all of their songs and point out all of their
> personal flaws, like Whisper has done with Federer. No, I have openly
> stated I generally find the Beatles overrated. Where did I say I hate
> the Beatles? Where did I say I hate all of their music? If this were
> about "The Fool on the Hill" for instance, a song I do like, I would
> have written something completely different.

IIRC, in the first exchange a few weeks ago you said something more extreme than just "I think they're generally overrated." Besides, once someone has trolled multiple times on a topic, should it be a surprise if others cast a doubtful eye on subsequent comments?

Anyway, there are many groups, artists, etc. where I'm split on how I feel about their work. Raja's favorites Led Zeppelin for example. But I gave the Grateful Dead as an example above because their music rubs me the wrong way to such an extent that I'd bypass a discussion about them. I'm not sure I could trust myself to recognize Jerry Garcia as a god if he were one.

> Let me ask you this Gracchus, why do you seem to take personal offense
> at flippant remarks about the Beatles? Are you related to one of them
> or something?

Well I could be. There's no reason their relatives can't be tennis fans.

[The Iceberg]

On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 18:58:50 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:31:37 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:17:02 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:02:32 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
>
> > > And I hate the fucking Beach Boys.
>
> > Now, that is just a knee-jerk reaction because Beach Boys get compared to The Beatles. I think Pet Sounds is one of the most brilliantly conceived albums of all time. And I don't mind their earlier surf rock stuff too... But they had a short peak in the mid to late 60s and it was literally just one album and that was Pet Sounds and the Good Vibrations single.
> It's not a knee-jerk reaction. You're talking as if I've never heard their stuff. Their music just does nothing for me. I've never understood why they're mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles. At least with the Stones, I get that.
>
> Worse yet, Brian Wilson regards himself as a genius based on a very small body of meaningful work.

yes am in the same boat / agree, I like them, but don't really get why they're considered up there with the Beatles. Brian Wilson seems to be considered a genius cos on Pet Sounds he had like 100 instruments / sounds playing on it and he arranged it all. Thing is I'd say Bowie did that too but even better and the Beatles had done it all before.

[The Iceberg]

On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 19:30:16 UTC+1, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:58:50 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:31:37 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:17:02 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:02:32 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> >
> > > > And I hate the fucking Beach Boys.
> >
> > > Now, that is just a knee-jerk reaction because Beach Boys get compared to The Beatles. I think Pet Sounds is one of the most brilliantly conceived albums of all time. And I don't mind their earlier surf rock stuff too... But they had a short peak in the mid to late 60s and it was literally just one album and that was Pet Sounds and the Good Vibrations single.
> > It's not a knee-jerk reaction. You're talking as if I've never heard their stuff. Their music just does nothing for me. I've never understood why they're mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles. At least with the Stones, I get that.
> Well, I don't think Beach Boys should be compared to Stones or Beatles... they are vastly different... they were not really rock music... their earlier surf rock predated the mid 60s rock music of Beatles, Yardbirds, Who and Stones (and instead owes a lot to the likes of Link Wray, Duane Eddy, The Ventures, The Shadows , Dick Dale etc.) and the latter brand of "classical pop" of Pet Sounds was not even in the same planet as what Beatles, Stones and other rock bands were producing.

yes agree with this.

[The Iceberg]

it sticks with you, it's catchy, surely you can't deny that?

[The Iceberg]

it's because you sound like you're trolling for attention "oh I don't like the Beatles", it's pretty cliched. The real question which bands do you reckon aren't over-rated + if Eleanor Rigby is "mediocre" what songs do you think aren't? yes it's 2 chords, is pretty simple, but has good lyrics and makes an iconic song, kind of lost by such a comment.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Ha ha. That's a CRUSHING blow.

Just listen to the final time the verse is repeated.

https://youtu.be/HuS5NuXRb5Y?t=88

"Eleanor Rigby
died in the church and was buried along with her name
Father McKenzie
wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave
No one was saved"

Listen to the orchestration as these words are sung. The second fiddle
staccatos drive the beat forwards. This beat goes through the whole
song, but the way it's played varies all the time. Tempo and "pitch". At
times it's on the 1-2-3-4 beats. Here it's on eights. The second time
around, it's back to 1-2-3-4 but the "pitch" is full "Psycho". Gives me
the creeps.

The syncopated melody adds to the tension all-round. On this final
repetition, the melody line is doubled by the cellos in "wiping the dirt
...". Gives me the creeps.

That's some drama in a 2min pop song. I love that song.

[guypers]

Great song, well said indeed!

[The Iceberg]

yes very good posting, my comment assumed he meant breaking it down it was a simple song? still, how he classifies it as "medoicre" is amazing!

[jdeluise]

For a song to stand on its own though I think it's good to
listen to different interpretations of it. Here's a recent cover
without so much of the orchestration while still trying to maintain the
dark tone of the song (I think).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8wIGC14Au0

Still like it as much and do you find it as evocative? But maybe this
is a bad example?

But surely if it's a good song the qualities of the song will shine
through even in a bad cover?

I ask myself this question a lot particularly when listening to blues,
because those songs are usually far simpler. Do I like the song, or the
performer/performance?

[Ima Raducansocanu]

Yes it is lol

>
> But surely if it's a good song the qualities of the song will shine
> through even in a bad cover?

That's an interesting take... but it also depends upon an artist, doesn't it? Imagine Stairway to Heaven covered by Bon Jovi using with that cheesy 80's production?

>
> I ask myself this question a lot particularly when listening to blues,
> because those songs are usually far simpler. Do I like the song, or the
> performer/performance?

I think it should be the performance... and that is the problem I have with Eleanor Rigby (don't misunderstand me... I do not hate it... I just like it lesser than many of my other favorite Beatles songs). For me the violins sort of ruin the song... a song with dark lyrics need not have dark sounding music IMO... and it is not that the violins make it sound dark, they make it sound rudimentary... "Plug in a string quartet there because I don't know how I will interpret this on acoustic guitar or piano; there haven't been many pop/rock songs with string quartet, isn't it?" seems to be the thought here. McCartney should have put in more effort.

There are covers out there which I like immensely, predominantly because I like the instruments on which they are covered (unlike the violin... mind you... I do like violin/viola as a drone instrument when used in certain avantgarde music, in symphony music and also in Carnatic classical)

1. Eleanor Rigby on Harp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu3oLlLBqJY
This is the most brilliant one I could find. I love the sound of the harp and the performer here is putting her soul into it.

2. Eleanor Rigby on Harpsichord
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28O4hsrMGDI
Harpsichord is my favorite keyboard instrument (nothing comes close... may be the clavichord or lute-harpsichord). This may be too bright for some... but I think a dark song with a bright arrangement makes it even more creepy...

3. Eleanor Rigby on Mandolin quartet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEZaUkbUbJ4
This is folksy/Middle-Eastern sounding... very good and drastically different... sounds sort of boring at the beginning and then friggin takes off... insane! I love the mandolin and its variants (there is mandola and mandocello used here). Its an Israeli band apparently.

4. Eleanor Rigby on Sitar (and string quartet in fact)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg18ziIZhR4
May be they should have let Harrison play sitar with the string quartet? He had done a great job on Norwegian Wood and that wasn't written by him either.

5. Eleanor Rigby on Dulcimer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OefHSL_r8oQ
I always loved the dulcimer and the guy makes the song sound serene yet melancholic

[Ima Raducansocanu]

Almost all Beatles songs are catchy, aren't they? McCartney was a catchy pop song-meister!

[Ima Raducansocanu]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:37:39 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 7:41:39 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> > Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > Odd that you weigh in on a thread like this after openly admitting
> > > you're heavily biased against all Beatles music.
>
> > Oh? Does that make my opinion any less valid? Or you are implying that
> > I don't actually believe what I wrote, or haven't heard the music? Is
> > that something I often do? There are plenty of threads here about a
> > variety of books, movies and music which I've never read, seen or heard
> > that I haven't commented on. But I am familiar with this one.
>
> > > It would be like me barging into a Grateful Dead discussion and
> > > pretending to assess each track in their catalogue with an even
> > > hand. Raja at least is presenting his impressions in good faith
> > > whether I agree with them or not.
>
> > Why do you imply I wrote it in bad faith? For example, I haven't come
> > in here claiming to be a huge fan of the Beatles yet somehow
> > simultaneously hate all of their songs and point out all of their
> > personal flaws, like Whisper has done with Federer. No, I have openly
> > stated I generally find the Beatles overrated. Where did I say I hate
> > the Beatles? Where did I say I hate all of their music? If this were
> > about "The Fool on the Hill" for instance, a song I do like, I would
> > have written something completely different.
> IIRC, in the first exchange a few weeks ago you said something more extreme than just "I think they're generally overrated." Besides, once someone has trolled multiple times on a topic, should it be a surprise if others cast a doubtful eye on subsequent comments?
>
> Anyway, there are many groups, artists, etc. where I'm split on how I feel about their work. Raja's favorites Led Zeppelin for example.

You can shit on Led Zeppelin if you like. I won't be offended. Go ahead, tell your real thoughts on them ;-)

>But I gave the Grateful Dead as an example above because their music rubs me the wrong way to such an extent that I'd bypass a discussion about them. I'm not sure I could trust myself to recognize Jerry Garcia as a god if he were one.
> > Let me ask you this Gracchus, why do you seem to take personal offense
> > at flippant remarks about the Beatles? Are you related to one of them
> > or something?
> Well I could be. There's no reason their relatives can't be tennis fans.

LOL... I used to like you... if anyone shit on my favorite bands, I would get defensive and call them a troll... but now after listening to a shitload of different music, I can understand where people come from. I don't think JD is trolling. He might not be putting much effort into articulating why he doesn't like Eleanor Rigby, but it is apparent, he doesn't think of it highly from the bottom of his heart. A pure troll would insincerely dismiss a song or artist just to piss of the fans.

[Ima Raducansocanu]

Oops I type too fast. I meant "I used to be like you"... completely changed the meaning there... lol

[Ima Raducansocanu]

May be it is the drama which makes me find it a bit annoying... I am not a fan of too much drama...lol

[Ima Raducansocanu]

And so is "I don't like any highly rated artist"... And I don't think he is trolling.

> The real question which bands do you reckon aren't over-rated + if Eleanor Rigby is "mediocre" what songs do you think aren't? yes it's 2 chords, is pretty simple, but has good lyrics and makes an iconic song, kind of >lost by such a comment.

You can't compare songs like that... I bet JD likes many other simple songs with 2 chords (and good lyrics). Its just he doesn't like this song. I understand his position.

[Ima Raducansocanu]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:41:39 PM UTC-5, jdeluise wrote:
> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Odd that you weigh in on a thread like this after openly admitting
> > you're heavily biased against all Beatles music.
> Oh? Does that make my opinion any less valid? Or you are implying that
> I don't actually believe what I wrote, or haven't heard the music? Is
> that something I often do? There are plenty of threads here about a
> variety of books, movies and music which I've never read, seen or heard
> that I haven't commented on. But I am familiar with this one.
> > It would be like me barging into a Grateful Dead discussion and
> > pretending to assess each track in their catalogue with an even
> > hand. Raja at least is presenting his impressions in good faith
> > whether I agree with them or not.
> Why do you imply I wrote it in bad faith? For example, I haven't come
> in here claiming to be a huge fan of the Beatles yet somehow
> simultaneously hate all of their songs and point out all of their
> personal flaws, like Whisper has done with Federer.

There is nothing which Whisper writes which is in good faith. Nothing he writes is sincere or genuine either. The only post he genuinely made was when his dog died and he repented how he brutalized it when it was alive. And he got flak for that (deservedly and primarily because he did not seem to realize what a self-centric douchebag he came out to be from that post).

>No, I have openly
> stated I generally find the Beatles overrated. Where did I say I hate
> the Beatles? Where did I say I hate all of their music? If this were
> about "The Fool on the Hill" for instance, a song I do like, I would
> have written something completely different.
>

Yep I agree he got a bit defensive there. I do not like The Fool On The Hill much by the way, though it is one of the very atypical Beatles songs.

> Let me ask you this Gracchus, why do you seem to take personal offense
> at flippant remarks about the Beatles? Are you related to one of them
> or something?

This is something I see with many Beatles fans... they get very defensive... Gracchus is okay... he hasn't called you an arsehole yet.

[Pelle Svanslös]

I got a real bad feeling about the version at

"Ah, look at all the lonely ... <insert coffee break> ... pypo".

I am positive Paul McCartney would hate things like that. Doing stuff
like that is pretentious. What is that pause there for? To keep me in
suspense about something?

When I heard this, I was sure I wouldn't have to wait long to hear more
of the same. It's a fine line, but ... let the song breathe on its own.

Otherwise, anything goes. They have some nice sounds and good vocals
here. Maybe a bit too haunting indie Goth for my tastes, but ok anyway.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

[Ima Raducansocanu]

What do you think of the versions I posted?

> I am positive Paul McCartney would hate things like that. Doing stuff
> like that is pretentious. What is that pause there for? To keep me in
> suspense about something?

It wasn't that Paul was not pretentious. He wrote most of Sgt. Pepper material and dressed like a douche on the cover (and made his bandmates also dress like that) ;-) I still like the album very much though and it is my favorite Beatles album.

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 8:09:04 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:37:39 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> > Anyway, there are many groups, artists, etc. where I'm split on how I feel about their work. Raja's favorites Led Zeppelin for example.

> You can shit on Led Zeppelin if you like. I won't be offended. Go ahead, tell your real thoughts on them ;-)

We've discussed them before so you know what I think of them. There are Zeppelin songs I love and never tire of. Then there are ones I always skip over--usually because Plant is overworking them.

> >But I gave the Grateful Dead as an example above because their music rubs me the wrong way to such an extent that I'd bypass a discussion about them. I'm not sure I could trust myself to recognize Jerry Garcia as a god if he were one.

> > > Let me ask you this Gracchus, why do you seem to take personal offense
> > > at flippant remarks about the Beatles? Are you related to one of them
> > > or something?

> > Well I could be. There's no reason their relatives can't be tennis fans.

> LOL... I used to like you... if anyone shit on my favorite bands, I would get defensive and call them a troll... but now after listening to a shitload of different music, I can understand where people come from. I don't think JD is trolling. He might not be putting much effort into articulating why he doesn't like Eleanor Rigby, but it is apparent, he doesn't think of it highly from the bottom of his heart. A pure troll would insincerely dismiss a song or artist just to piss of the fans.

But my point was that he HAS trolled repeatedly in recent weeks--like reducing the whole Beatles output to "Love Me Do." So when he then comes into an "Eleanor RIgby" thread and dismisses the song as a bunch of whiny nonsense, why would he be indignant that I'm not respecting it as serious analysis?

[Ima Raducansocanu]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 11:13:38 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 8:09:04 AM UTC-7, Ima Raducansocanu wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:37:39 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
>
> > > Anyway, there are many groups, artists, etc. where I'm split on how I feel about their work. Raja's favorites Led Zeppelin for example.
>
> > You can shit on Led Zeppelin if you like. I won't be offended. Go ahead, tell your real thoughts on them ;-)
> We've discussed them before so you know what I think of them.

You are vastly overestimating my memory then ;-)

> There are Zeppelin songs I love and never tire of.

Which ones?

> Then there are ones I always skip over--usually because Plant is overworking them.

Which ones? I do find many songs which are somewhat ruined by Plant's vocals, are from the latter period (1972 and on) because he lost his voice circa 1971 (because of the constant touring and him smoking cigarettes, what a lousy thing for a singer to do!) and then even had a vocal surgery around 1973.

I actually do like him "oversinging" (I am not sure what you mean by "overworking"; I am assuming you mean the same as oversinging). He himself said he oversang on the 1st album, but I love it. He never oversang the way some of the divas like Whitney Houston and Celine Dion do. I think he is too critical of himself here... he should be critical of his latter voice instead especially on songs like "The Ocean".

> > >But I gave the Grateful Dead as an example above because their music rubs me the wrong way to such an extent that I'd bypass a discussion about them. I'm not sure I could trust myself to recognize Jerry Garcia as a god if he were one.
>
> > > > Let me ask you this Gracchus, why do you seem to take personal offense
> > > > at flippant remarks about the Beatles? Are you related to one of them
> > > > or something?
>
> > > Well I could be. There's no reason their relatives can't be tennis fans.
>
> > LOL... I used to like you... if anyone shit on my favorite bands, I would get defensive and call them a troll... but now after listening to a shitload of different music, I can understand where people come from. I don't think JD is trolling. He might not be putting much effort into articulating why he doesn't like Eleanor Rigby, but it is apparent, he doesn't think of it highly from the bottom of his heart. A pure troll would insincerely dismiss a song or artist just to piss of the fans.
> But my point was that he HAS trolled repeatedly in recent weeks--like reducing the whole Beatles output to "Love Me Do."

Did he say that?

>So when he then comes into an "Eleanor RIgby" thread and dismisses the song as a bunch of whiny nonsense, why would he be indignant that I'm not respecting it as serious analysis?

Yeah, he could have articulated it better.

[jdeluise]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> But my point was that he HAS trolled repeatedly in recent weeks--like
> reducing the whole Beatles output to "Love Me Do."

I did no such thing. Pelle brought up "Love Me Do" as a prime example
of a good Beatles song. I said it sounded like a repurposed blues song
with some flourishes and a bad harmonica solo.

> So when he then comes into an "Eleanor RIgby" thread and dismisses the
> song as a bunch of whiny nonsense, why would he be indignant that I'm
> not respecting it as serious analysis?

Serious analysis? It was a flippant comment, I admitted this already.

[jdeluise]

Ima Raducansocanu <zepf...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> Did he say that?

I didn't. He's convinced himself I said something I haven't. Beatles
fanboys seem to be oversensitive like this, I've seen it many times
which is why I know exactly how to push his buttons. Ultimately I think
it's a sign that deep down they lack confidence that the Beatles are the
geniuses they'd like them to be. Any attempt to detract from them in
the slightest seems to prompt smug, angry and jealous responses just
like his.

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 9:34:58 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:

> > But my point was that he HAS trolled repeatedly in recent weeks--like
> > reducing the whole Beatles output to "Love Me Do."

> I did no such thing. Pelle brought up "Love Me Do" as a prime example
> of a good Beatles song. I said it sounded like a repurposed blues song
> with some flourishes and a bad harmonica solo.

OK, you're right. Sorry about that. The closest thing you said to any of that was this exchange in the McCartney-Stones thread.

> > There would be more than enough in the Beatles' catalogue to play over
> > two hours--even without cover tunes.

> How much of that time would be spent on yellow submarines, the sun popping
> out and just letting it be I wonder?

> > So when he then comes into an "Eleanor RIgby" thread and dismisses the
> > song as a bunch of whiny nonsense, why would he be indignant that I'm
> > not respecting it as serious analysis?

> Serious analysis? It was a flippant comment, I admitted this already.

Fair enough, part of what defines RST is trollish moments from nearly everyone. I probably overreacted.

[Ima Raducansocanu]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 11:44:40 AM UTC-5, jdeluise wrote:
> Ima Raducansocanu <zepf...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > Did he say that?
>
> I didn't. He's convinced himself I said something I haven't. Beatles
> fanboys seem to be oversensitive like this, I've seen it many times
> which is why I know exactly how to push his buttons.

Beatles fans are actually critical of certain songs of theirs -Maxwell's Silver Hammer for example. But if you slam any of the songs they consider as sacred (Eleanor Rigby is a good example), they flip out.

>Ultimately I think
> it's a sign that deep down they lack confidence that the Beatles are the
> geniuses they'd like them to be. Any attempt to detract from them in
> the slightest seems to prompt smug, angry and jealous responses just
> like his.

Yeah you are right about this. Gracchus is not an extreme example of a Beatles fan... but the extreme fans are exactly like what you say. The only band which attracts more number of smug nuts is The Who. The Rolling Stones seem to be generally okay (deep down inside most Stones fans know that the Stones have been mediocre for a long time now - especially since the early 70s).

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 9:44:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> Ima Raducansocanu <zepf...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > Did he say that?

> I didn't. He's convinced himself I said something I haven't. Beatles
> fanboys seem to be oversensitive like this, I've seen it many times
> which is why I know exactly how to push his buttons. Ultimately I think
> it's a sign that deep down they lack confidence that the Beatles are the
> geniuses they'd like them to be.

You're engaging in some quotidian armchair psychology here. I think my comments on the Beatles are well-balanced. Obviously I'm a fan, but I don't say everything they ever turned out is genius and I acknowledge where they fall short. I've talked about their limited musicianship for example. Court 1 was the one defending Ringo when I said his drumming was rudimentary compared with many other rock bands. I think there were many better guitarists than George Harrison, especially in their earlier music. There are some Beatles songs I can't stand and a lot of others that I skip over because I feel they haven't stood the test of time. This stuff has turned up in conversations here over the years, but it's easier to place me in the category of fanatic I guess.

I do believe Lennon-McCartney are among the great songwriters--and songwriting teams--of popular music the 20th century and at their best, the Beatles were innovators in writing-arranging-recording their compositions. If that makes me a starry-eyed "fanboy," so be it.

[Ima Raducansocanu]

Yes, good point.

[Pelle Svanslös]

The mandolin band is absolutely great. The band did the most with the
song too. The rest are more or less faithful renditions with different
instruments. Good but a bit on the ho-hum side, IMO.

[grif]

On 19/10/2021 16:39, guypers wrote:
> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/25/paul-mccartney-writing-eleanor-rigby-beatles
>

Looking forward to the new Beatles documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aCVA2DXMKM

As an aside, The Beatles also pop up in the excellent and comprehensive Ali documentary by Ken Burns and co.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6719950/

[jdeluise]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 9:44:40 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
>> Ima Raducansocanu <zepf...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >
>> > Did he say that?
>
>> I didn't. He's convinced himself I said something I haven't. Beatles
>> fanboys seem to be oversensitive like this, I've seen it many times
>> which is why I know exactly how to push his buttons. Ultimately I
>> think it's a sign that deep down they lack confidence that the
>> Beatles are the geniuses they'd like them to be.
>
> You're engaging in some quotidian armchair psychology here. I think my
> comments on the Beatles are well-balanced. Obviously I'm a fan, but I
> don't say everything they ever turned out is genius and I acknowledge
> where they fall short. I've talked about their limited musicianship
> for example. Court 1 was the one defending Ringo when I said his
> drumming was rudimentary compared with many other rock bands. I think
> there were many better guitarists than George Harrison, especially in
> their earlier music. There are some Beatles songs I can't stand and a
> lot of others that I skip over because I feel they haven't stood the
> test of time. This stuff has turned up in conversations here over the
> years, but it's easier to place me in the category of fanatic I guess.

It's not hard when you react so emotionally about pretty minor and
insignificant gripes... and of course that's all they'll always be, just
gripes. I don't and haven't claimed to be an expert, I "like" some
music from an entertainment perspective, I "admire" other music as an
expression of art. Some of the latter I don't necessarily enjoy though.
This stuff is all subjective, you can't objectively "prove" to me the
genius of the Beatles, just as I might not be able to convince someone
else that third stream composer and musician Louis Hardin (Moondog) was
a genius.

This reminds me a lot of when one of us points out Nadal's growling and
howling on the court. To someone like TT that is highly offensive
because when he sees Nadal through his rose-colored glasses he sees that
as an expression of incredible determination, grit and focus. He is
offended that when we see it we see animal-like posturing and
intimidation.

Of course that's also what makes it fun, to play with that imbalance of
perception a bit.

>
> I do believe Lennon-McCartney are among the great songwriters--and
> songwriting teams--of popular music the 20th century and at their
> best, the Beatles were innovators in writing-arranging-recording their
> compositions. If that makes me a starry-eyed "fanboy," so be it.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

[Ima Raducansocanu]

I will prove it. Anyone who thinks Moondog was not a genius, is a moron. So their opinion doesn't count ;-)

[Ima Raducansocanu]

Thanks... I actually like some of those faithful renditions over the original. I agree. The mandolin band seemed to gone the adventurous route and hence sound the most captivating.

[Ima Raducansocanu]

Gracchus, what do you think of these renditions?

[Gracchus]

I know. This is what I've gone through with "Deadheads" when they tell me if you really "understand music" and listen to their entire catalogue, you'll eventually realize (as everyone should) why they are the greatest band that ever walked the Earth. Maybe part of that is developing a strong bond with the music in your formative years. Or in the case of Deadheads, having lots of wonderful acid trips at their concerts.

> This reminds me a lot of when one of us points out Nadal's growling and
> howling on the court. To someone like TT that is highly offensive
> because when he sees Nadal through his rose-colored glasses he sees that
> as an expression of incredible determination, grit and focus. He is
> offended that when we see it we see animal-like posturing and
> intimidation.

> Of course that's also what makes it fun, to play with that imbalance of
> perception a bit.

LOL

[jdeluise]

Ima Raducansocanu <zepf...@gmail.com> writes:

> I will prove it. Anyone who thinks Moondog was not a genius, is a
> moron. So their opinion doesn't count ;-)

lol.

Somehow I only just saw that there is a collection of his music on
pipe organ, "A New Sound of an Old Instrument". Some of it is really
good, particularly highlighting the contrapuntal nature of his music.
Some of it is pretty discordant in this format though. Songs
like "Barn Dance" though, particularly on the organ you can hear the
influence on and from "minimalism" (he was apparently well known by the
minimalists, lived with Glass for a while).

There is also "On The Streets of New York", just released last year that
has a ton of content I'd never heard. Highly recommended if you like
Moondog.. https://moondog.bandcamp.com/album/on-the-streets-of-new-york

[Ima Raducansocanu]

Thanks, I will check it out.

For me this album seals his legacy in gold
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y80QulpLUo&list=PLiN-7mukU_REyKvKlRJMwGjsNCamUhqpd

[The Iceberg]

he can't say Eleanor Rigby is "mediore" and then not be asked what he considers a non-mediocre song, as it gives us a baseline to assess his judgement.

[The Iceberg]

disgree, it's like saying you can't "prove" Fed is genius tennis player or Mozart a genius composer, yes you can, the Beatles transcended music and their songs, creativity and huge influence continue to today.

[Ima Raducansocanu]

Your guru Whisper "proved" otherwise many times.