SPG900 said:
If you're going to talk about the importance of The Beatles vs. contemporary classical music (I was talking about all classical btw), then I too would say The Beatles are important, for their clear, ear-catching, simple but well-constructed melodies: something which is overlooked many times by a lot of classical composers, especially of course some contemporary ones. In fact I've heard someone say this before, I think it was Gergiev, and he continued to compare The Beatles with Rachmaninoff's great melodies because of this. My point was though, that you're going to get more out off analysing classical compositions, and I still stand by that. Sorry for replying to that already, but I feel I've listened/read enough already to have an opinion about this, without having watched this specific show. Not to say I'm not curious now...
I was talking about the Beatles importance in relationship to contemporary classical more than 'classical' classical
P). I probably should have defined that, but that is what the show specifically talks about. Whenever you get a chance to watch it you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
SPG900 said:
As for guitar tabs, what bothers me mostly about them is their poor way of translating rhythm. Unless of course you know the song already, I would never go with tabs. But I'll admit I only know the basics of guitar playing, so maybe I'm wrong here?
The one major weakness of tabs is its inability to express rhythm in the same way sheet music does. I haven't had nearly as much experience with tabs as I have had with sheet music, but I'd definetly say it is a major weakness. I've been playing piano and reading sheet music for over 15 years now, while I've only played guitar and read tabs for a year. I've played from chords for quite a while as well - probably around 10 years. Still, I have never been able to play guitar from sheet music, no matter how hard I try. I think my brain is just hardwired for playing piano from sheet music, but I think tabs and chords are just a more natural way of expressing things for guitar.
SPG900 said:
Either way, I was mostly talking about The Beatles' lack of musical training (--> smth for which I feel being able to read notes is almost a must), and how George Martin made up for that.
I still don't think formal musical training has much to do with how good of a musician you are. I'd like to think it was important, as I spent over 10 years of my life studying Royal Conservatory piano, but from my experience playing with other musicains, I could not say it is vital. I have an ear and talent for specific things, while people I know who are self-taught have an ear and talent for other specific things. Neither of us are more talented than the other, we merely have different strenghts and weaknesses. I know musicians who play entirely from ear who are able to do things I can not even fathom, while the inverse is probably also true.
SPG900 said:
As for Brian Wilson(*), I would still say Pet Sounds is better. It isn't when it comes to production quality, but I think it is overall, mostly in terms of song writing. It would have been a much closer call if Harrison's Within You Without You had been omitted. It's one of his poorer Beatles contributions, and sadly it does take up 1/8th of the record. I always listen to Pet Sounds from start to finish, but it's been years since I last did that with Sgt Pepper's.
I can definetly see your point here. I would have a hard time chosing between Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper's myself, but I think I would always end up chosing Sgt. Pepper's. However, in my opinion, the greatest Beatles album is the White Album.
SPG900 said:
I just had the impression from your post that you were saying The Beatles were the creative force of that period, which I think is only a half truth.
I didn't intend to say they were
the creative force of that period - I intended to say that they were the greatest creative force. That is obviously a bit subjective, but while bands like the Beach Boys were doing incredibly creative things in terms of song writing and recording, I sitll think the Beatles were more creative.
SPG900 said:
(*)regarding his breakdown: I always thought it started much before the release of Sgt. Pepper's, and that he got psychologically confused while making Smile. He was starting to have doubts, and the fact that he constantly had to defend his direction to the rest of the band didn't help. On top of that, he knew he wasn't going to be given enough time to finish the project properly. The Beatles did play a part in it, but prior to SPLHCB, with the release of Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever. By the time the record came out (sadly without those two tracks on it, and with Harrison's poor track), the damage was already done for Wilson.
I could very well be wrong about exactly what caused his mental breakdown, but around the time that Smile was released, I saw a series of documentaries and interviews with Wilson, and remember hearing the explination that hearing Sgt. Pepper's caused his ultimate breakdown. His breakdown did happen in 1967, whicih was the same year Sgt. Pepper's was released. He was obviously going downhill for quite a while, but as far as I know, Sgt. Pepper's was the breaking point for him. I could very well be wrong though, as Brian Wilson and most of the people around him were taking
a lot of drugs at the time - in a situation like that, no one probably knows or remembers exactly what went on.