mjp
Founding member
Why the Beatles?
- Thread starter Billville
- Start date
Moonie and Harry Nilsson gettin' all liquored-up. That's a boat-load of booze, right there.
Skygazer
And in the end...
A bit late with this, but amazing anyway:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...t-chart-record-with-top-five-singles/7178941/
No 1 in the UK too with Can't buy me love.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...t-chart-record-with-top-five-singles/7178941/
No 1 in the UK too with Can't buy me love.
"All you need is love"
Gee, since this is the first thread I could stick my needle in, so to speek, I have a few thoughts about the Beatles. In 1965, Brian Wilson was the man to beat. He made "Pet Sounds", with the Wreaking Crew. When the rest of the Beach Boys came home, Brian put together a sonic masterpiece. You choose your friends but you have your family. If not for a dysfunctional family,the Boy's would have been the closing act of the Monterey Pop Festival. The songs from "Pet Sounds" and a taste of "SMiLE", in my opinion would have ushered in "the new sound." I had tracts from SMiLE. It was one of the first things I used the internet for. Before that, I spent years trading Zappa shows around the globe with snail mail. I still have cases full of Maxell XL2 tapes, the "Gold Standard" of its day, of 2nd Generation Zappa shows. So, thankfully, "SMiLE" officially came "out of the closet!" I personally think SMiLE beats Sargent Pepper. Jimi Hendrix, famously sets his guitar(later Frank Zappa's guitar & I could talk all day about why ZAPPA is my favorite guitar player)on fire and says,"May you never hear surf music again." So, here is my all roads lead to Bukowski part.
Mike Love =Tab F'ing Jones
Black Swan
Abord the Yorikke!
There are a few Zappa fans here, Ken!
I figured there had to be. Conceptual Continuity makes my day!
Welcome Ken: I can't dig on The Beach Boys much at all, but I do agree that Brian Wilson was brilliant and Pet Sounds is a very strong album. If nothing else, it served as Paul McCartney's motivation (and perhaps for the rest of the lads) for his work on Revolver, which I consider to be a bit stronger than Pepper. As for Zappa, his strongest suit are his arrangements to me, but certainly he could rip it up on guitar. Saw the band at E.M Loew's in Worcester, MA back in '84. My one knock on his overall strength as a guitarist is that he chose to solo over one chord or at most, a two-chord vamp rather than the full tune changes. The results are generally fantastic, but that keeps him out of the upper echelons of guitarists for me. Plenty of other great guitarists adopted a similar approach.
Anyway, that clip on the Zappa website from the Roxy: Montana--> Dupree's Paradise is among the best band performances ever for me; keep in mind, Zappa knew how to hire great musicians! Any word on the Roxy by Proxy? I saw a track list for the CD and it didn't appear to contain said Montana--> Dupree's Paradise. I certainly hope it makes it onto the DVD.
Anyway, that clip on the Zappa website from the Roxy: Montana--> Dupree's Paradise is among the best band performances ever for me; keep in mind, Zappa knew how to hire great musicians! Any word on the Roxy by Proxy? I saw a track list for the CD and it didn't appear to contain said Montana--> Dupree's Paradise. I certainly hope it makes it onto the DVD.
Bukfan
"The law is wrong; I am right"
Indeed, and one or two Zappa threads as well!
mjp
Founding member
Let's not forget that Wilson, Lennon and Hendrix (and McCartney, if to a lesser extent) all took a shit load of drugs, and the widespread use of those drugs by musicians had a major hand in changing pop music in the mid-60s. Maybe more so than anyone's particular "genius." Much of the music from that era would have never been created and recorded had the psychedelics not been around. Just saying.
Yes indeed. But a caveat would be that many, many mediocre musicians cite this drug use as something of a justification for rehearsing/gigging whilst wasted. What they forget is that Wilson, Lennon, Hendrix, and McCartney, along with a slew of others (like it or not, The Grateful Dead come to mind), were or are, massively talented. I'm not suggesting that you missed this point, because I'm sure you didn't, but it was the first thing I thought of when reading your post. Certain drugs certainly changed music, but only when coupled with a relatively rare vehicle that was capable of translating intoxicated detachment into something genre-changing.
I should start with a Zappa line,"Does Humor Belong in Music?" My answer is without humor anything is doomed, although my sense of it runs from dark to light. WHY THE BEATLES? It is the first "thread that didn't have a "permission to post is denied." So, I kept looking and finally found this thread. :)I like seeing Dweezil with the Zappa Plays Zappa, also great bands. The Zappa family, like Frank, want to control the "vault", so time constraints keep it generally sealed.I apologize for any typos I didn't find. My computer is down and I'm typing this on a kindle!
I like seeing Dweezil with the Zappa Plays Zappa, also great bands. The Zappa family, like Frank, want to control the "vault", so time constraints keep it generally sealed.
mjp
Founding member
Yes, that was an unspoken element of what I was saying. I wasn't commenting so much on anyone's talent as the fact that what those talented people did in the mid/late 60s wouldn't have been the same without the psychedelics.
Before he went down the drugs/mental illness rabbit hole Brian Wilson wrote surfing songs for Christ's sake. A great songwriter? Undeniably. But I think the idea that he would have made anything like Pet Sounds if he was straight is hard to swallow.
The times they live in and the things musicians live through affect their work. It's why much of music sounds the way it does today. It's become something different than what it was 40 years ago, because the world the musicians live in has become different. For better or worse.
I love the Beatles. My computer is down and I'm posting with my phone. Brian Wilson, to me, is an ARTIST. I'm thankful, I saw him and his awesome band with Jeff Beck(my favorite living guitar player) last year. I'm also getting out of my chair to go see Paul McCartney when he comes to town. I wrote a response that got lost. Before the Internet, I was a tape trader, Maxell XL2, was the "gold standard." I traded Zappa shows by snail mail, all over the globe. You would answer an add in Gold Mine Magazine. I have cases full of 2nd generation tapes, as we used to call them. Once the Internet "popped", I traded in "digital". I had a lot of clips from Brian Wilson's SMiLE album & even arranged my own version. Thanks too, that SMiLE, finally came out! I agree about Zappa soloing over a "vamp" but he was interweaving with all those awesome musicians. It was "finishing school" to them, like graduating in the top of your class from Harvard. He also gave the middle finger to the "record company pricks" & put out a volume of work that runs through every musical genre, before a to early death. I like that his son Dweezil keeps his music alive and he is an awesome guitar player. The last time I checked he was taking a guitar lesson. I play the guitar and have watched Dweezil master TONE. I'm glad he still is "learning",learn something new everyday is a great way to live! The "producers" who control most of the "product" in my opinion, wether it be music or movies, etc., are not ARTISTS. You can't eat money but you can wipe your ass with it! Look at the "critic", "the record company pricks" & the "genius in the crowd" to see our "culture" deconstructed. I see a rabid pack of wolves leading the Sheepole into the abyss. I came on this Bukowski Forum to find other "wolves" without rabies, to challenge the psychos. I think the Beatles had it right, "All You Need is Love!" Bukowski, to me, in essence is LOVE A hard shell holds a tender interior, once cracked it explodes with LIGHT~can't wait until my computer is fixed! SMiLE
Everything is Connected
Who knows when we will see the "Roxy" DVD. The CD, has wonderful liner notes, by the amazing Ruth Underwood and includes an all percussion Cheepnis and a great Dupree's Paradise/King Kong/Chunga's Revenge/Mr. Green Genes, that I love. I think I have your Worcester Show :)
P.S.~I'm an old Dead Head
Everything is Connected
Zappa's drugs were caffeine & nicotine ;-)
Who knows when we will see the "Roxy" DVD. The CD, has wonderful liner notes, by the amazing Ruth Underwood and includes an all percussion Cheepnis and a great Dupree's Paradise/King Kong/Chunga's Revenge/Mr. Green Genes, that I love. I think I have your Worcester Show :)
P.S.~I'm an old Dead Head
mjp
Founding member
Zappa isn't in the same class or genre of people like The Beatles or Brian Wilson. They were pop musicians that millions of people listened to. Zappa is a cult figure if you compare him to them, and his influence on popular music was all but non-existent.
ZAPPA influenced me, long before I stumbled on Brian Wilson. I never bothered listening to the Beach Boys. I thought they were a fad. I stumbled on to an article on the internet about how influential Pet Sounds was. I realized in 2010, I had never heard it. I had listened to and traded the Dead, Led Zeppelin,Pink Floyd & Zappa(obsessively), thousands of hours. Click, I'm listening to it. I don't watch TV but I have a hell of a sound system. By the time I got to,"Don't Talk(Put Your Head on My Shoulder), I felt a tear. I said,"son of a BITCH once again I've proven my ignorance." I proceeded with my obsession and traded my way into SMiLE.
Black Swan
Abord the Yorikke!
Found myself wondering if Bukowski had ever mentioned the Beatles.
The only reference I found is this one, in a poem titled the 60's, from The Flash of Lightning Behind the Mountain:
I seemed to be the only person with
an 8-hour job.
and there were always people
coming through the door and raiding
my refrigerator for food and beer.
"WE SHARE!" the woman I lived with
told me, "WE SHARE OUR LOVE!"
a guy would stick his face into mine.
drunk on my beer, he'd scream:
"YOU OUGHTA SEE THE YELLOW
SUBMARINE!"
"what's that" I asked.
"THE BEATLES, MAN, THE
BEATLES!"
I thought he meant "beetles."
The only reference I found is this one, in a poem titled the 60's, from The Flash of Lightning Behind the Mountain:
I seemed to be the only person with
an 8-hour job.
and there were always people
coming through the door and raiding
my refrigerator for food and beer.
"WE SHARE!" the woman I lived with
told me, "WE SHARE OUR LOVE!"
a guy would stick his face into mine.
drunk on my beer, he'd scream:
"YOU OUGHTA SEE THE YELLOW
SUBMARINE!"
"what's that" I asked.
"THE BEATLES, MAN, THE
BEATLES!"
I thought he meant "beetles."
number6horse
okyoutwopixiesoutyougo
I didn't bother to read this thread all the way through... but I'm currently listening to Rubber Soul in it's entirety. And that is enough (?)
zobraks
Moderator
Of course it was John Martin who put The Beatles in the poem, we all know he was pretty much acquainted with those guys.
Or was it George Martin?
Bukowski (himself) mentioned The Beatles in The Birth, Life and Death of an Underground Newspaper:
(from The Most Beautiful Woman in Town, page 114 in Virgin book)
Then again maybe he mixed them up with The Rolling Stones :p, who knows.
Skygazer
And in the end...
I think I would be more surprised if he had immersed himself in cultural revolution of the sixties given his age. It was predominantly a youth driven movement (no surprise given the demographics). He did contribute to it on a literary level with his writing in the "littles" and by challenging what was "suitable" to have published. Not to mention the cachet of catching (sorry) the interest of the FBI.
But to have seen him donning long hair and beads at the age of 47 to participate in the Summer of Love, would have been as scary as me going home to find my dad wearing a Frankie Goes To Hollywood neon pink T-Shirt. I think he reacted to The Beatles, The Stones et al, the same way most hard working, middle aged men with commitments in the sixties did - it passed them by.
That said, I'm happy he did go on to have a bit his own personal Sixties in the Seventies, if you believe everything in Women, that is.:)
But to have seen him donning long hair and beads at the age of 47 to participate in the Summer of Love, would have been as scary as me going home to find my dad wearing a Frankie Goes To Hollywood neon pink T-Shirt. I think he reacted to The Beatles, The Stones et al, the same way most hard working, middle aged men with commitments in the sixties did - it passed them by.
That said, I'm happy he did go on to have a bit his own personal Sixties in the Seventies, if you believe everything in Women, that is.:)
Skygazer
And in the end...
Who needed LSD when you had clothes like that? Got to say though, really I loved the clothes from the sixties and early seventies, used to go to a vintage clothing shop in Glasgow and scour the second hand shops, because I hated the eighties mainstream clothes - diabolical. But to get the thread back on track, one of my favourites:):
Last edited:
mjp
Founding member
Got the Criterion (blu-ray) version of A Hard Day's Night
today, and it's pretty crazy to see that movie in such detail. I've seen it half a dozen times over the past 50 years, but the thing is pristine here, and it's like seeing it for the first time (kind of like the first time I saw Barfly on DVD).
There are also 900 "special features" of course, but I've only made my way through 350 of them so far.
There are also 900 "special features" of course, but I've only made my way through 350 of them so far.
mjp
Founding member
I should have mentioned that the last time I saw it was on a VHS tape, so I probably shouldn't be surprised that it looks so much better here.
I still don't see a big difference between Blu-ray and DVD though. At what point is high resolution so high that increasing it doesn't make a difference? I think we're already there. Especially when the source is a 35mm film negative (or an album recorded on magnetic tape).
The only reason I even bought a Blu-ray player was because they are all Internet-enabled now, so we can play a dozen different disc formats and Netflix and Amazon video on one box (a box that cost about 8% of what I paid for the most expensive VCR I ever bought). Technology is wonderful.
I still don't see a big difference between Blu-ray and DVD though. At what point is high resolution so high that increasing it doesn't make a difference? I think we're already there. Especially when the source is a 35mm film negative (or an album recorded on magnetic tape).
The only reason I even bought a Blu-ray player was because they are all Internet-enabled now, so we can play a dozen different disc formats and Netflix and Amazon video on one box (a box that cost about 8% of what I paid for the most expensive VCR I ever bought). Technology is wonderful.