Sorry but I have to disagree here. His discography is all smoke and mirrors. He doesn't write his own material. How many songs are credited solely to Kanye? Not many if any. He has multiple writers, and from all accounts the guy doesn't do much but show up and bark out his manufactured lyrics. The guy is one of those Hollywood lab experiments with not an ounce of soul or legitimacy. But that's cool your into him. Rock on.

I have to rewrite my post because I had to log in again. ><

I get your point but Kanye West is more a producer than a rapper/lyricist.I never said he was Bob Dylan or something. But he is excellent at what he does. How can you assume that he's not that much involved in his albums when anyone with ears could recognize Kanye's touch? And please, don't start to tell me that he acts like he's the only producer or that he has "ghostproducers" when people who co-produced his albums got credited. Plus you don't have to write/produce all your material by your own/be a great musician to be considered as a genius in "popular music". Did Elvis write his own songs? And you should hear Morrissey play piano. What matter is sound, charisma and concepts. Kanye West may not be a great vocalist but his "not so good flow" and his samples are iconic. IMO the main problem is that, to judge his work, you use the same criteria as you would for others artists. "Too many producers" sure I get your point but for the kind of music he makes that's fine.

To be honest this is a matter of point of view:

Scaruffi about the Beatles
""""Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses. The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.""""



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-11 18:57 by RomanCandle.

<<Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles>>

Does Eric Clapton count? Listen from 7:28 in the clip below as Clapton reflects on his first impression of them as musicians.

"When I saw them play, I mean, I was overwhelmed by their gift. Each one of them seemed to be very well endowed with their own musical capacity... He was clearly an innovator. George, to me, was taking certain elements of R&B and rock and rockabilly and creating something unique."

Quote
RomanCandle

To be honest this is a matter of point of view:

Scaruffi about the Beatles
""""Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses. The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.""""

A very ignorant and mis-informed point of view, imo. The Beatles brought performer songwriting into the pop music equation. Many artists of the time have acknowledged this fact. Not only did they do it but they were very, very good at it.

They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties

Yes that was the whole plan and purpose. Radio pop songs were limited to 3 minutes and this was the palette the Beatles created on. The songs on Rubber Soul and Revolver weren't just good, they were fantastic, especially compared to the other music coming out in 1965-6.

To call the Beatles a trivial band is like calling water an inessential nourishment. I didn't discover the Beatles till after they were broken up and their songs still help up to all the other music created in the interim, still hold up today.

peace

true, this Scaruffi article is BS...

Quote
RomanCandle
true, this Scaruffi article is BS...

Of course I knew you didn't agree being a big Elliott Smith fan. Elliott's harmonic composition was obviously heavily influenced by the Beatles.

peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
RomanCandle
true, this Scaruffi article is BS...

Of course I knew you didn't agree being a big Elliott Smith fan. Elliott's harmonic composition was obviously heavily influenced by the Beatles.

peace

Yes, most of his songs could have been written by Macca or Harrison: Sweet Adeline, Independence Day, Son Of Sam, Baby Britain, Junk Bond Trader...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-12 07:41 by RomanCandle.

Quote
RomanCandle

To be honest this is a matter of point of view:

Scaruffi about the Beatles
""""Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses. The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.""""

Shocking in his inability to grasp what is seemingly obvious to everyone else.

I guess that's what a lack of education does for you.

You kids...STAY IN SCHOOL!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
RomanCandle

To be honest this is a matter of point of view:

Scaruffi about the Beatles
""""Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses. The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band.""""

Shocking in his inability to grasp what is seemingly obvious to everyone else.
I guess that's what a lack of education does for you.

You kids...STAY IN SCHOOL!

You don't have to be uneducated to write that the Beatles were a trivial band. Theses and doctorates don't cure snobbery.

You do have to be ignorant to the point of brain dead however to see them as trivial in the world of music.
Scar.... is just current day Milli Vanilli trying to get his name in the media by bagging one of the greats. Worked out a peach for them.

Whilst McCartney continues to put out new music I'd say his sets are as much a nostalgiafest as the Stones'. It's good he adds a couple of recent tracks in though but then the Stones did on the ABB tour and Doom And Gloom become a staple. At the end of the day I'd say most people go and see him because it's the closest you'll get to seeing The Beatles and the amount of Beatles stuff in his set reflects that. Most older acts' sets are backward looking now - look at Roger Waters, the guy spent years touring Dark Side and The Wall with barely any solo material in the sets.

I'd say the only guy from the '60s who predominantly plays new stuff is Dylan. Saw him at the Albert Hall a couple of years ago and it was predominantly stuff from Time Out Of Mind onwards, with a ton from his then latest album (Tempest). Dylan seems to have actively avoided doing the nostalgia route as evidenced by his heavy reworking of songs. Robert Plant's another one that springs to mind.