Lennon blatantly copied and even plagiarized Chuck Berry's 'You Can't Catch Me' in the Beatles song 'Come Together'.

Lennon blatantly copied and even plagiarized Chuck Berry's 'You Can't Catch Me' in the Beatles song 'Come Together'.

Hey that's pretty good ... ya should see what Mr Zimmerman has lifted ..



ROCKMAN

Quote
windmelody
The Beatels were great, but Lennon's quote is pointless. The Stones copied the Beatels at times, and TSMR is one of the weakest Stones albums. But from 1968 (B on the Stones were better than the Beatels. Even Noel Gallagher said that the Stones remained on a great level longer than the Beatels. Lennon did nothing memorable after the Beatels. Imagine is so overrated. It is Brave New World with pseudo-poetic lyrics.

No not really its just a fantastic record. and also TSMR is not undercover is



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-03 03:11 by Godxofxrock9.

I think We Love You is very similar in spirit to Tomorrow Never Knows. Good thing too. They are both fantastic.
Taking anything seriously from that rolling stone interview is not worth it. He's lashing out at everyone left right and centre. The man had "issues" and a rubbish solo career.
Still it's a shame he isn't around to knock some sense into Macca on occasion. He was good at that until he couldn't be bothered saving us from crap like honey pie,long and winding road and maxwells silver hammer.

Wow, it was an interview, that's all. Can we really take every single word literally? Can Lennon be simply exaggerating to make a point? Are we really still emotional about an interview from 40+ years ago with someone who has been gone for almost 33 years??

Quote
DaveG
Wow, it was an interview, that's all. Can we really take every single word literally? Can Lennon be simply exaggerating to make a point? Are we really still emotional about an interview from 40+ years ago with someone who has been gone for almost 33 years??

True. Lennon had this pent up anger for some reason. Maybe they all needed that to propel them into new lives, separate from each other. Though John, George & Ringo stayed pretty tight for the first post-Beatle years.

Lennon also called Warhol a fag or something similar, and yet there's photos of him at The Factory after that interview. A very complex guy.

Yes, Lennon was trying to get things off his chest. McCartney and demands of being a Beatle seem to be a constant gripe in that interview. I think also he was trying to generate some publicity for his solo work.

Still, it is a fascinating interview.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-03 04:30 by nightskyman.

If you liked the interview it is on a pod cast with a lot more that wasn't released.

Some of the things Lennon has claimed the Stones copied have been a stretch. I remember one quote posted a while back where he was blowing hot air because of Let It Be/Let It Bleed. I just assumed the title of Let It Bleed was a reference or joking play on Let It Be (I know it wasn't out yet, but it had been recorded), but other than that the songs have absolutely jack shit to do with each other. One is a piano ballad concerning a dream Paul had about his mother, the other is a country/rock song about (from the best I can tell, never thought much about it) sex, drugs and relationships.

Quote
Rockman


............................................................. .................................................... MICK JAGGER

Hah, for someone who thought The Beatles were so blase, he sure showed up at a lot of Beatles events: All You Need Is Love session, Maharishi lecture, etc. He also had Lennon at the Rock & Roll Circus, of course, and had John and Paul sing on a Stones single. That's a lot of togetherness for someone Mick considered so blase. The truth: Mick was absolutely in awe of them at the time. Later on, he allowed himself to get a little cocky with regard to The Beatles, but this quote doesn't fool me one bit.

Leave Mick alone.



ROCKMAN

Quote
Gazza
...and we're off....!

Hilarious!

Quote
Rockman
Leave Mick alone.

OK.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Rockman
Leave Mick alone.

OK.

.and John...

Quote
Rockman


............................................................. .................................................... MICK JAGGER

Jagger's use of the word 'provinces' is pretyy pompous - London-centric view of England/U.k. Would make a Merseysiders blood boil!

With reagrd to Lennon's initial quote -

Beatles WERE better musicians, and their music will outlive that of the Stones.

But 'powerwise' - well there Lennon is talking s h i t e.

And as was pointed out - Stones did not copy Beatles record for record.

I even thought that Len/Mac wrote I Wanna Be Your Man for Stones - in the studio even? Heard a story to that effect.

Quote
Deluxtone
I even thought that Len/Mac wrote I Wanna Be Your Man for Stones - in the studio even? Heard a story to that effect.

With ALO as the go-between:

In the early days of the Beatles, John Lennon and Paul McCartney often gave songs to their friends. They wrote one of them, ‘I Wanna Be Your Man,’ for the Rolling Stones at London’s De Lane Lea Studio on Sept. 10, 1963.

The meeting of the two groups was arranged by Stones manager Andrew Loog Oldham, who had also been the Beatles publicist. “Oldham had almost literally bumped into Lennon and McCartney as they stepped out of a cab,” writes Bill Janovitz in ‘Rocks Off: 50 Tracks that Tell the Story of the Rolling Stones. “He invited them to the studio where the Stones were rehearsing, and right then and there, the two finished off what had been a McCartney sketch of an idea, handing it the Stones for their single.”

Further details at: [ultimateclassicrock.com]

A more interesting story, though, concerns why they gave it away....

3 Tales That Tell How Little Lennon & McCartney Cared About “I Wanna Be Your Man”
Rock N' Roll Diary Extra | Matt Dolloff, 100.7 WZLX
September 11, 2013 9:05 AM

John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote so many brilliant Beatles songs in the 1960s, some they simply gave away. That’s exactly the case for one of their earliest singles, “I Wanna Be Your Man”.

The song, written by Lennon and McCartney and first recorded by the Beatles on September 11, 1963, famously became a hit only after the Rolling Stones, not the Beatles, recorded it and released it as their own single.

Despite that the song was obviously catchy enough to spark radio success for the Stones, Lennon and McCartney didn’t seem to ever take the song seriously. At all. These three stories are strong evidence of that…

1. They saw the song as a promo for Ringo Starr

Ringo Starr had never contributed his own written song for the Beatles leading up to the release of With The Beatles in 1964, so in order to give him a chance at lead vocals the band had to provide him with a promotional “vehicle” single, which turned out to be “I Wanna Be Your Man”. Ever wonder why Ringo gets a bad rap when talkingabout the Beatles? This is one reason why.

Lennon once called the song a “throwaway”, and Paul has never recalled the single as anything beyond a vehicle for Ringo. Almost embarrassingly, the backup vocals from the rest of the band are arguably more impressive. That hasn’t stopped Ringo from featuring the song on the setlist of his most recent tour with his All-Star Band, though.

Most telling of how seriously John & Paul viewed the song is that they willingly gave the single away to a band who at the time were competing with them for listeners’ attention.

2. They handed the song to the Rolling Stones

The day before the Beatles recorded their first take of “I Wanna Be Your Man”, they met their former press agent Andrew Oldham, who had become the Rolling Stones’ manager. After meeting with Oldham in a taxi cab ride, John & Paul met with the Rolling Stones to show them the song and offer it up to them for recording.

They performed the song, which at the time wasn’t even finished being written – it needed a middle eight. So John & Paul hammered away at it in a side room before returning with the completed song.

Of course, Oldham and the Stones loved the song and accepted it as a single, and it went on to become their first top-20 hit. But given how little John & Paul cared about it, perhaps they were trying to sabotage them! If that’s the case then the plan backfired.

3. The Rolling Stones version was released earlier than the Beatles

Despite recording “I Wanna Be Your Man” before the Rolling Stones, the Beatles opted to wait until releasing it as part of With The Beatles on November 22, 1963. The Stones, meanwhile, released the song as their second single ever three weeks earlier.

Surely John & Paul have no regrets about withholding promotion for “I Wanna Be Your Man” – or at least taking the lead vocals themselves. They wrote enough classic hits. But if it worked for the Rolling Stones it likely could have worked for them.

So what about the song itself? It’s easy to consider the Stones version superior; nobody would argue Ringo Starr’s vocals could touch Mick Jagger’s and Brian Jones’ slide guitar is way more distinctive than any part of the Beatles version. But that just goes back to how little John & Paul cared about this song.

So a song John & Paul considered a “throwaway” turned out to be a Stones classic which is still performed live today. Most people wish they could write any hit, let alone one they could just give away.

Article from: [wzlx.cbslocal.com]

Jesus - is this 1965 or 2013? We should be thankful that we all lived in an age of this great music. Who cares. Love one, the other or both but don't grumble about people making music.

So we owe Ricahrd Starkey a HUGE vote of thanks.

And their fantastic opener at the O2 last November.

I wish there was a way of editing I wanna be your man so the Stones play the verses with that great slide and bass guitar and the beatles play the chorus with their awesome backing vocals. Best of both bands right there and an illustration of the difference between the two.

Quote
Deluxtone
we owe Ricahrd Starkey a HUGE vote of thanks.

Not only that. We can also learn a great deal from Ringo, like how to make a killer piece of toast....





....and, of course, how to keep fit....

Right that does it.

I'm going to HAVE to purchase a copy of With The Beatles (vinyl ofcourse), Get the rum out, prime the toaster, cue side 2 track 8 and get ready to .........

........ SingalongaRingo .....

I wanna be your lover baby,
I wanna be your toast ......

Tell me that yuou love me baby
Tell me tah I'm your toast .......

You can be my butter baby
I wanna be your toast.

I don't think there is anything wrong with not liking the Beatles or liking both.

The issue I do take is with Beatles fans stating things that are completely untrue and if you enter into a conversation with some them they will accept nothing else than the Beatles are the best of all time and they did everything first. They were the most popular group that looked like they did everything first. For a start the yardbirds used sitar in a song months before the Beatles, Lennon claimed the stones copied them. No mention that he maybe copied the yardbirds...but frankly who cares if the music was good. But it was the start of beatles fans claiming everything as a first for the fab four.

here's another example I thought for a long time that pepper was ahead of it's time but when you consider SPLHCB came out in June 1967 AFTER Velvet Underground & Nico ( January) The Doors ( January) Younger Than Yesterday (February) of the Byrds , Surrealistic Pillow Jefferson Airplane ( February) i don't hear anything on pepper that is in the same ball-park as "the end".

If you want to see how little debate you can have with some beatles fans look on amazon and anyone that puts a negative/or different view point across and read the comments.

Frankly i don't like the red and blue album all the songs are overplayed i my opinion. But give me hey bulldog , i want you or some of the unplayed stuff on the white album - then i enjoy them on occassion.

Are they as good as the stones? In my opinion no, but I respect anyone who disagrees, but don't try and force me to believe they are the best group ever or better than everything else in the 60's i don't buy that re-written bit of history at all.

Here below is a different view point from Daniel Margrain on amazon, his review of rubber soul. Look up his exile review also

The release of 'Rubber Soul' happened against a backdrop of social unrest and student protests against the Vietnam war and against the establishment in general.

The rebellion that had been seething through the 50s had finally found its intellectual vehicle in the work of Bob Dylan and others. But all of the social upheaval of the time seemed to have bypassed the smiling pretty-faced boys in suits.

Whilst artists like Dylan began challenging the assumptions that underpinned authority, the smiling foursome continued with their whimsical approach and catchy exuberant refrains which began to grip the imaginations of the youth on both sides of the Atlantic. But behind the smiling fascade, were four mediocre musicians.

Far from being symbols of rebellion, they were reactionism and cliche personified. The Beatles' optimism and effervescence, represented an escape from reality - a kind of cushion from which the kids could be isolated. The record company bosses and their media lackeys were smart enough to realize that the 'not-so-fab-four' could provide them with the insulation from the chaos of the world enveloping around them and to turn this into an exercise in making big bucks. It was a relationship made in heaven and as usual it was one that the Beatles were only too willing to exploit.

The release of 'Rubber Soul' in December 1965 was notable for the completion of the Beatles' transition from Merseybeat to folk-rock. Certainly, the influence of the Byrds on this recording cannot be overstated. Was it merely a coincidence that the David Crosby-ian and exotic mood of 'Norwegian Wood' which followed their US tour was evident in the recording?

According to critic Piero Scaruffi, it seems unlikely. So does the influence of the rock and roll beat in 'Drive My Car' and 'Run For Your Life', and the accompanyment of the sitar in 'Norwegian Wood' which, as Scaruffi points out, was already utilized by the Yardbirds.

Scaruffi argues that the timid psychedelia of 'Nowhere Man' and 'Rain' were arguably inspired by 'Eight Miles High', as were the vast repertoire of harmonies for their standards. The tender ballads 'Girl' and 'Michelle' were in the style of 1950s vocal groups and whilst pleasant in their own way, were hardly groundbreaking.

1965 was truelly a watershed in rock music and radical alternative culture in general, all of which clearly passed the Beatles by as evidenced in their adherence to conservative social attitudes that was more a reflection of the 1940s and 1950s then the emerging counter culture of the age.

At a time when the four "mop tops" were churning out pleasant ballads, timid psychedelia and music ground out on a barrel organ and accordian ('We Can Work It Out'), San Francisco was abound with long-haired hippies, of experimental pyschedelic music and Indian gurus.

Whilst hippies were experimenting with free love, poetry and LSD, the Beatles response was to give the world,'Day Tripper'.

Quote
Anyway, I've got a show to do
I don't think there is anything wrong with not liking the Beatles or liking both.

The issue I do take is with Beatles fans stating things that are completely untrue and if you enter into a conversation with some them they will accept nothing else than the Beatles are the best of all time and they did everything first. They were the most popular group that looked like they did everything first. For a start the yardbirds used sitar in a song months before the Beatles, Lennon claimed the stones copied them. No mention that he maybe copied the yardbirds...but frankly who cares if the music was good. But it was the start of beatles fans claiming everything as a first for the fab four.

here's another example I thought for a long time that pepper was ahead of it's time but when you consider SPLHCB came out in June 1967 AFTER Velvet Underground & Nico ( January) The Doors ( January) Younger Than Yesterday (February) of the Byrds , Surrealistic Pillow Jefferson Airplane ( February) i don't hear anything on pepper that is in the same ball-park as "the end".

If you want to see how little debate you can have with some beatles fans look on amazon and anyone that puts a negative/or different view point across and read the comments.

Frankly i don't like the red and blue album all the songs are overplayed i my opinion. But give me hey bulldog , i want you or some of the unplayed stuff on the white album - then i enjoy them on occassion.

Are they as good as the stones? In my opinion no, but I respect anyone who disagrees, but don't try and force me to believe they are the best group ever or better than everything else in the 60's i don't buy that re-written bit of history at all.

Here below is a different view point from Daniel Margrain on amazon, his review of rubber soul. Look up his exile review also

The release of 'Rubber Soul' happened against a backdrop of social unrest and student protests against the Vietnam war and against the establishment in general.

The rebellion that had been seething through the 50s had finally found its intellectual vehicle in the work of Bob Dylan and others. But all of the social upheaval of the time seemed to have bypassed the smiling pretty-faced boys in suits.

Whilst artists like Dylan began challenging the assumptions that underpinned authority, the smiling foursome continued with their whimsical approach and catchy exuberant refrains which began to grip the imaginations of the youth on both sides of the Atlantic. But behind the smiling fascade, were four mediocre musicians.

Far from being symbols of rebellion, they were reactionism and cliche personified. The Beatles' optimism and effervescence, represented an escape from reality - a kind of cushion from which the kids could be isolated. The record company bosses and their media lackeys were smart enough to realize that the 'not-so-fab-four' could provide them with the insulation from the chaos of the world enveloping around them and to turn this into an exercise in making big bucks. It was a relationship made in heaven and as usual it was one that the Beatles were only too willing to exploit.

The release of 'Rubber Soul' in December 1965 was notable for the completion of the Beatles' transition from Merseybeat to folk-rock. Certainly, the influence of the Byrds on this recording cannot be overstated. Was it merely a coincidence that the David Crosby-ian and exotic mood of 'Norwegian Wood' which followed their US tour was evident in the recording?

According to critic Piero Scaruffi, it seems unlikely. So does the influence of the rock and roll beat in 'Drive My Car' and 'Run For Your Life', and the accompanyment of the sitar in 'Norwegian Wood' which, as Scaruffi points out, was already utilized by the Yardbirds.

Scaruffi argues that the timid psychedelia of 'Nowhere Man' and 'Rain' were arguably inspired by 'Eight Miles High', as were the vast repertoire of harmonies for their standards. The tender ballads 'Girl' and 'Michelle' were in the style of 1950s vocal groups and whilst pleasant in their own way, were hardly groundbreaking.

1965 was truelly a watershed in rock music and radical alternative culture in general, all of which clearly passed the Beatles by as evidenced in their adherence to conservative social attitudes that was more a reflection of the 1940s and 1950s then the emerging counter culture of the age.

At a time when the four "mop tops" were churning out pleasant ballads, timid psychedelia and music ground out on a barrel organ and accordian ('We Can Work It Out'), San Francisco was abound with long-haired hippies, of experimental pyschedelic music and Indian gurus.

Whilst hippies were experimenting with free love, poetry and LSD, the Beatles response was to give the world,'Day Tripper'.

The Beatles, like the Stones adapted their music from their surroundings. That shouldn't be considered a bad thing, or a weak thing, or creatively defunct, because they did an amazing job of this and created it in their own style, as have the Stones.

One can choose not to like either band but to try and shoot them down citing their use of prior influences is ridiculous.

Didn't we agree on that this matter was settled? The Stones soared past the Beatles at Glastonbury. Let's move on to something else now...

Let the Eagle Soar

He sings pretty well though...

LOL....amen to that, happy to!

Hi Anyway, a fine, thoughtful post. Just to address a few of your points, first by prefacing that we are looking back on the Beatles and the 60s now in legacy terms, and culturally speaking the Fabs are at the top of the heap. That is just how history currently views them. But you are correct in that there were also other artists, and many of them, who were first in many areas. The Beatles had their influences when starting out, and they had influences after they were established. A creative artist does not intentionally dictate styles to be followed, they just happen to be picked up upon, and The Beatles were influenced as much by their contemporaries as they were by their forbearers--one reason that every Beatles album is unique unto itself, a step ahead in progression from the one that came before.

It is also key, from a legacy standpoint, when they broke up. Had they stayed together another 10 years, during which somewhat blander, less forceful music would have been recorded--not to mention seeing their "throne" usurped by the punks as though a rock n roll version of the French Revolution were taking place--our view from 2013 might not be so lofty.

Quote
Anyway, I've got a show to do
the yardbirds used sitar in a song months before the Beatles

True, but they also used a session musician to play it, unlike Harrison who actually went to India to study directly with Ravi Shankar, with the result being that Harrison continued to use the instrument on several tracks, to create a new form of Indian-flavored "pop" song.

Quote
Anyway, I've got a show to do
The release of 'Rubber Soul' in December 1965 was notable for the completion of the Beatles' transition from Merseybeat to folk-rock. Certainly, the influence of the Byrds on this recording cannot be overstated. Was it merely a coincidence that the David Crosby-ian and exotic mood of 'Norwegian Wood' which followed their US tour was evident in the recording?

There was indeed a mutual influence between the Byrds and The Beatles--first The Byrds were influenced by The Beatles after seeing the Hard Day's Night movie, hence the incorporation of Rickenbacker guitars into their sound, then The Byrds influenced The Beatles, as Lennon would be jamming at a house in Laurel Canyon with McGuinn in 1965 and Dave Crosby would be accompanying The Beatles on their 1966 tour (Crosby can be seen lurking in the wings of one of their press conferences on that tour).

Another important contemporary influence on The Beatles was The Beach Boys, particularly Brian Wilson and his Pet Sounds, which The Beatles saw as an inspiration and a challenge.





One of the most important and revolutionary changes wrought by The Beatles on the music industry of their time was the sudden evolution of the status of the songwriter to top tier of the totem pole, as Neil Diamond, who was working in the Brill Building, explains:

Diamond never encountered the Beatles personally. But he did witness their impact on Tin Pan Alley.

'I remember I was still in the Brill Building when they arrived in the US. All the staff writers gathered around and listened to this new group from England that was all the rave and all the talk.

'I thought: “OK, they’re pretty good.” We thought maybe it was just like a teenage sensation because the kids were going crazy over the Beatles. But they did change the way the music business was done in the United States, no question about it.’
The shock waves of the Fab Four’s invasion of the US, he says, were profound.

'First of all, the writing of Lennon and McCartney signalled the emancipation of the songwriter, who had always been the low man on the totem pole. Paid the least. Least respected. Least recognised. But suddenly the songwriter was on a par with the big stars – these guys could not only write but they could sing as well.’

So began the end of the Tin Pan Alley era. 'People realised it wasn’t necessary to have somebody own your copyright to your songs and bring them around to try to get other people to record them,’ says Diamond, who has hung on to the copyright of all his songs since.

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

Quote
Anyway, I've got a show to do
behind the smiling fascade, were four mediocre musicians.

If that's true, then how come their music is the most widely covered of any sixties artists?

Wilson Pickett covered their top-selling single.





Stax musicians recorded a tribute album....



....and there has also been a soul tribute album.



You mentioned Rubber Soul in your post as being derivative, yet it has nonetheless been the subject of entire tribute albums as well.



Booker T and The MGs recorded their own version of Abbey Road.



Jimi Hendrix liked Sgt. Pepper so much he learned the title track the weekend of its release and featured a cover in concert just 3 days later.





If they were so mediocre, then why would the likes of Billy Preston and Eric Clapton play on their records?

Quote
Anyway, I've got a show to do
San Francisco was abound with long-haired hippies, of experimental pyschedelic music and Indian gurus.

George Harrison visited Haight-Ashbury and came away with the impression that it was little more than a glorified American Bowery full of spotty, drop-out kids.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Anyway, I've got a show to do
behind the smiling fascade, were four mediocre musicians.

If that's true, then how come their music is the most widely covered of any sixties artists?

I don't agree with the first quote, because I wouldn't call their rhythm section mediocre by any stretch, one of the best I'd say. Though there are many guitar players with more technical skill than John and George, like Paul in my opinion. But could those players write like the Beatles, not a lot of them. It's not all about technical skill Anyway, I've Got A Show To Do. Nor does the fact their music has been highly covered prove they were great musicians, just great songwriters. It doesn't take great technical skill to touch somebody. A great song doesn't have to be played by a great musician, just somebody with something fresh to say or play. Keith goes on and on in Life about the music he loved being so simple, guys banging away on one chord, etc. When I was younger, we all loved Nirvana. It wasn't difficult music, it was simple. Some critics will tell you the simplicity is what the people were responding to. I don't know, I just thought it sounded good. Regardless of whether it was difficult. It all comes down to that murky area of ingenuity vs technical skill. Both are preferable, as I enjoy both. But either one can turn me on. Assuming the technical skill still sounds good, I don't like listening to songs that are hard for the sake of being hard, and offer nothing.

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Anyway, I've got a show to do
behind the smiling fascade, were four mediocre musicians.

If that's true, then how come their music is the most widely covered of any sixties artists?

I don't agree with the first quote, because I wouldn't call their rhythm section mediocre by any stretch, one of the best I'd say. Though there are many guitar players with more technical skill than John and George, like Paul in my opinion. But could those players write like the Beatles, not a lot of them. It's not all about technical skill Anyway, I've Got A Show To Do. Nor does the fact their music has been highly covered prove they were great musicians, just great songwriters. It doesn't take great technical skill to touch somebody. A great song doesn't have to be played by a great musician, just somebody with something fresh to say or play. Keith goes on and on in Life about the music he loved being so simple, guys banging away on one chord, etc. When I was younger, we all loved Nirvana. It wasn't difficult music, it was simple. Some critics will tell you the simplicity is what the people were responding to. I don't know, I just thought it sounded good. Regardless of whether it was difficult. It all comes down to that murky area of ingenuity vs technical skill. Both are preferable, as I enjoy both. But either one can turn me on. Assuming the technical skill still sounds good, I don't like listening to songs that are hard for the sake of being hard, and offer nothing.

Yes, that's actually a better way of saying it.

The simplicity is important, because it inspires more people to pick up and instrument and form a band, whereas the same effect won't be found from, say, Coltrane or Miles Davis.

And in terms of virtuosity vs. simplicity, the likes of the Ramones, Sex Pistols and Clash resulted in more bands being formed than ELP and et al.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Anyway, I've got a show to do
behind the smiling fascade, were four mediocre musicians.

If that's true, then how come their music is the most widely covered of any sixties artists?

I don't agree with the first quote, because I wouldn't call their rhythm section mediocre by any stretch, one of the best I'd say. Though there are many guitar players with more technical skill than John and George, like Paul in my opinion. But could those players write like the Beatles, not a lot of them. It's not all about technical skill Anyway, I've Got A Show To Do. Nor does the fact their music has been highly covered prove they were great musicians, just great songwriters. It doesn't take great technical skill to touch somebody. A great song doesn't have to be played by a great musician, just somebody with something fresh to say or play. Keith goes on and on in Life about the music he loved being so simple, guys banging away on one chord, etc. When I was younger, we all loved Nirvana. It wasn't difficult music, it was simple. Some critics will tell you the simplicity is what the people were responding to. I don't know, I just thought it sounded good. Regardless of whether it was difficult. It all comes down to that murky area of ingenuity vs technical skill. Both are preferable, as I enjoy both. But either one can turn me on. Assuming the technical skill still sounds good, I don't like listening to songs that are hard for the sake of being hard, and offer nothing.

Yes, that's actually a better way of saying it.

The simplicity is important, because it inspires more people to pick up and instrument and form a band, whereas the same effect won't be found from, say, Coltrane or Miles Davis.

And in terms of virtuosity vs. simplicity, the likes of the Ramones, Sex Pistols and Clash resulted in more bands being formed than ELP and et al.

Yeah, the "I can do that too" thing is a biggie. I know sometimes I've even started to like songs a lot more, once I learned to play them. Changes the way you experience the music to some degree. At the same time listening to the virtuoso's gives me something to shoot for, and I enjoy being in awe of their talent.