peteb

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1361125464' post='1981453'] At the level the Terrortones are currently at (a band with our first single out on an independent record label) the audiences and opportunities seem far better than they were for any similar level band I played in or went to see gig, any time in the 80s or 90s. We are getting enough worthwhile gig offers to be playing at least once a week, and these are all gigs that at the very least will cover all our expenses. It may of course be the fact that all my previous bands were crap and weren't worthy of the attention my current band is getting, but I can't remember there ever being so many opportunities as there are right now. [/quote] Cool - seems like you're bucking the trend and have got the right band at the right time!

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1361123233' post='1981395'] I assume we're talking about the audience for covers bands here? Because form where I'm stood playing original music the audience has never been bigger and there seems to be more and more places play every time I look. [/quote] Are you trying to say that the audience for original music is bigger than in the 80s and early 90s?? That is certainly not the impression I get from people I know who are still out there doing original material ... A bit better if you are in a niche in the market and can travel for the right gigs. The pub / covers curcuit is far from dead - if you get a decent band at a decent venue you can still have plenty of good nights! However, it is undeniably not as healthy as, say, ten years ago. Too many crap venues and too many crap bands out there all chasing an audience that is declining for various reasons (recession, smoking ban, etc) ...

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1361119305' post='1981314'] ... the music scene is struggling because people are struggling ... I don't think more venues chasing the dwindling music audiences helps either.... [/quote] I would agree with both of those statements - the smoking ban has had a negative effect as well...!

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1360891029' post='1978126'] I guess you missed the Howard Goodall documentary posted earlier by Fat Rich - you should take a look. It goes a little way to explaining [b]why[/b] they were rated so highly "based purely on their musical output". [/quote] Perhaps I will, but do i really need to? Maybe it is worth a look but these has never been a shortage of academics, not to mention classical orchestras, ready to exploit the hype of the Beatles to bring attention to their own work or to illustrate musical theory to the masses. I'm sure that he may well have grown up with a love of the Beatles like you and so many others. However I haven't seen it so this is speculation. No one is denying that the Fabs wrote songs with unusual song structures but were they the greatest songwriters ever or merely doing the equivalent of a Btec in music theory & composition with George Martin as the tutor?? MacCartney's later attempt at classical music was hardly stellar was it?

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360884255' post='1978040'] You Sir, are so spot on it's incredible! ("FBO" is the printers term) You should write a book. [/quote] I thought that I just did (almost)!!

You lot still here?? This is (hopefully) my last contribution to this epic saga on why the Beatles became a national treasure and the biggest pop group of all time, but may be ever so slightly over-rated (of course, based purely on their musical output)! First of all we have to set the scene…. it’s the early sixties and on this side of the Atlantic there is an economic boom following post war austerity, angry young men abound and sex is in the process of being invented. Hoards of new beat combos (some from the north of England) emerge from the skiffle craze, influenced by the American rock n’roll sounds from the fifties, all competing to be top of the hit parade. The winners of this particular race are four lovable scousers, all cute haircuts and suits, quite good looking with a cheeky sense of humour and displaying the new found confidence of working class Brits! In short, perfect to sell to the new market of teenage girls who see can all see at least one of them as ideal boyfriend material! But what makes them different from the Bay City Rollers of ten years later? Well, they do have some talent and they even write their own songs, unheard of at the time (but don’t tell Chuck Berry or all the other American artists of the previous decade). Then they go across to America and storm it, filling the vacuum left by Elvis when he abandoned his rebellious beginnings to join the army and become an all-round family entertainer. This momentum takes them to being the biggest ever act to come out of the emerging pop music market – they sell shiploads of records, play to hundreds of thousands of screaming teenage girls, break all existing records and generally create dozens of fascinating factoids that will be quoted in internet forums nearly 50 years later! By this time they are not only the poster boys of teenagers into pop music but also at the forefront of the emerging psychedelic and hippy movements. Then they stop playing live! They are encouraged to spend all of their time in a state of the art studio with a top producer who happens to be a highly trained musician. Every record they release goes straight to number 1 to great critical acclaim, generating humongous amounts of cash! They are encouraged to be as creative as they can be, to experiment with different musical forms and even be self-indulgent. As long as they keep churning out records they can do whatever they like! Remember at this time, pop and rock music is still relatively new and everything they (and others) create sounds fresh and is treading new ground! So John Lennon can muck around with ideas with lots of major chord changes whilst shouting I am the Walrus and people look for hidden meanings for an insight into his genius! Macca can try out his new found Tin Pan Alley songwriting chops and people whose musical tastes were formed before rock and roll can find something to like and the Beatles are their favourite group as well! They write all sorts of songs across all genres: some great, some good, some not so good and some bloody awful! Everything they did sold without them having to tour and anyway, they had more money than they could ever want anyway. No other band has ever been in that position before or since. I would suggest that there have been better songwriters, but they have had to write to a particular audience and hope to crossover to other markets and then tour for years if they wanted to sell lots of records. The Beatles have become part of the pop DNA and their music has been very influential, but has it been really that more influential than Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Elvis, the Stones, Tamla Motown, the Beach Boys, Hendrix, Led Zep & the Who, etc?? I would suggest that important as they were, their music alone was not as remarkable as their huge cultural and social significance as the flag carriers of the most influential decade of the post war era……

Most of the girls I know who gig regularly tend to have partners who are musicians and often end up playing in bands with them! It can cause problems but usually it works out alright so why worry. Tal Wilkenfeld seems to do ok playing with Vinnie Colaiuta.....

[quote name='Urban Bassman' timestamp='1360669566' post='1974167'] I'd vote for the Nash 63P. Would love to have a go on one of those. [/quote] I have a Nash 63JB, which is a very nice bass....

How about Kim Mitchell 'Rock and Roll Duty' [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9W94_VvfTA[/media]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1360667196' post='1974133'] What I'm saying is that there is no way to measure the 'value' of these artist's output without reference to their popularity. If, as you seem to accept, their musical legacy is huge and influential, how can it then be argued that it is over- hyped? How would you suggest we measure 'artistic value' ? [/quote] [color=#222222]An individual measures 'artistic value' in a subjective way – but if you say that is invalid then you are dismissing a whole tradition of artistic criticism going back many centuries![/color] [color=#222222][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"] [/size][/font][/color] [color=#222222]I would suggest that even though they have a genuine musical legacy, it is nowhere as good as popularly accepted nor does it justify the incredible hype that surrounds the Beatles – therefore they are 'over-rated' in purely musical terms![/color] [color=#222222][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"] [/size][/font][/color] [color=#222222]Of course, this view is subjective, but still worthy of debate and should not be dismissed out of hand due to a blind devotion to a pop group of fifty years ago. I am a big Led Zep fan, but I don’t consider them to be above criticism and neither are the Beatles…![/color]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1360664451' post='1974079'] It's not people's individual opinions of The Beatles that is really the issue here, it's the denial of their global influence when it's there for all to see. It's like hating football because it's a daft game played by over-paid prima donna half-wits (which seems a fair summary to me) and then denying the national influence of the game that millions of people watch and enjoy each week ( which would be plain stupid wheat he evidence is clear). That's all. YMM indeed V . . . . so let's all acknowledge that it does - sometimes for billions of people. Let's face it, Simon Cowell is also a hugely influential music figure for that very reason. [/quote] I think that we are arguing at cross purposes here! When someone suggests that the Beatles may possibly be over-rated, they are not denying their global influence when as you it is there for all to see. What they are saying is that their musical legacy, huge and influential as it may be, does not justify the even bigger hype surrounding it. Simon Cowell is indeed a hugely influential figure in the current music / entertainment business – are you really trying to equate his artistic value with that of the Beatles??

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1360612602' post='1973461'] The new Xotic XP basses look pretty nice to me , but in my experience the closest you can get to nice vintage Fender but better is the U.S.A Lakland Bob Glaub ( now called 44-64 ) . [/quote] They are the two I would go for - not that I've played an Xotic XP, but if they are as good as their jazz bass then they will be stunning!

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1360621876' post='1973704'] That's me told. FWIW, Mrs. WoT & I have a lot of musical friends, and our relatives are interested in what we do. We did about 45 minutes with different people getting up to do a bit - we had fun, doing what we do with our pals. And after that, the 'real' band finished the night off. I'd consider it a success... [/quote] Similar thing with me and my good lady - it was a great night, no one had to be on stage for too long and everybody had fun! Job done....

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1360613625' post='1973498'] I'm going to a long time friends (school) soon. There will be a lot of muso's there so there will be bands playing and other musical stuff. I think it's an extraordinarily bad idea. It turns the wedding into a gig, diverts attention from the bride (and in reality it's her day). Plus it means people have to focus on what's going on and detracts from what a wedding should be, a celebration. [/quote] Depends on what she (and the groom) wants! We didn't really want a formal or traditional wedding, so we held the reception in a brewery (her idea), printed the invitations on beer mats and put on a curry for the guests! Basically it was just a big party and we got loads of friends to play short sets so everyone could enjoy the night rather than playing all night! It was great fun and went better than we could have hoped. Several people said that it was the best wdding they had ever been to and could they come to the next one....

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1360605216' post='1973225'] I haven't had experience of Bass Direct, but hear great things, and all of my correspondence from Bass Gear has been superbly helpful. If I was in the market for a £2000 bass, I'd look there first and get the best of both worlds. [/quote] [color=#222222]I think that Mark is very much a 'people person' and would happily chat and argue (in a good natured & entertaining way) with his customers all day if he didn't have a shop to run! The same goes for Phil at Bass Gear, although not so argumentative but still very gregarious....[/color] Having said that, I've never had a problem with the Gallery whenever I've been there and I'm sorry to see Alex go....

[quote name='niceguyhomer' timestamp='1360569537' post='1972301'] Good factoid SteveK. I'll never understand how anyone can use the word 'overrated' when talking about the Beatles or dismiss their huge influence on music. I've said this before in previous Beatles discussions so forgive my repeating this but you had to be there in the 60s to really appreciate the effect they had and not just on music - but on British culture, it was enormous. I lived right opposite Paul from 1959 on and grew up in a road that was bursting at the seams every single day with onlookers and screaming girls who made a lot of noise, caused havoc and nicked things out of his garden. That was 50 years ago - my Mum still lives there with my brother and still they're plagued every single day by coachloads of people who come from all over the world to stand outside and stare at the house where Paul used to live. They don't scream any more, they don't nick things out of his garden, they just stand there quietly taking photos of the house where someone famous lived half a century ago. Doesn't that speak volumes? [/quote] There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding here. No one can argue that the Beatles were the biggest and most important band ever (in terms of social & cultural significance). There will never be another Beatles! No matter how big U2 were a few years ago and even if you thought that their music was the best ever recorded, they still will not be looked back in retrospect as being as important as the Fab 4. However, it is perfectly reasonable to question if the MUSIC lives up to this hype? To use my example above, is Yesterday the greatest song to emerge from the rock and roll era, or is it merely a bog standard Tin Pan Alley type tune! Does the use of both major and minor tonality in A Day In The Life evidence of genius at work, or is it a reasonable imaginative 60s pop song? We're they really better songwriters than the Beach Boys? All these questions are valid and should not answered by cries of 'but they were the Beatles, the biggest pop group of all time'!

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1360537611' post='1972119'] It's London, no one likes anyone. If you wanted banter you should have gone north of Nottingham! [/quote] Having lived in both London and in the north I can say that definitely is not true! However, things are different in London without doubt....

Yea, I did! However I only played two 15 minute sets with two bands I had been in and we had three other bands playing (one playing a longer set) and a bit of a jam session to finish off. I would think that playing for two hours would be a bit tricky to pull off and might make the event seem more like a gig than your wedding! After all, you don't get married every day and it will probably be several years before your next one...!!

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1360534004' post='1972053'] I got the impression that they must get a lot of idiots in (infact one came in while I was there) but chatted briefly to the guy and he warmed up a bit. Some people just don't do small chat and small talk (and for non londoners everyone seems unfriendly!) so I wouldn't hold that agianst them. I went in and asked to play something (cheaper) and genuinly think I could have asked to play anything. If you don't ask... then you don't get. [/quote] I think that is the heart of the matter. I've only met Alex twice but I don't think that he is naturally chatty but ok once you do talk to him. A lot of people find Londoners either overbearing or unfriendly, but if you live there it just seems normal....

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1360533945' post='1972049'] Maybe it's me! What I forgot to say was that for most of the time, I was the only customer in the shop, which should have been more conducive to a chatty exchange between enthusiasts, but instead, because of Alex's frosty manner, just made for a really uncomfortable and awkward atmosphere. [/quote] I think that it is probably more a reflection on Alex than you - he can be very friendly but you are not the first person to say this about him...

[quote name='Clarky' timestamp='1360532971' post='1972017'] There have been other threads along these lines. I felt a bit ignored when I went in a few years back. I have got to know the guys there better subsequently. The tattoo'd guy you are referring to is Alex, the shop manager. He is actually a really nice guy when you get to know him but there are a lot of tyre kickers who come to the shop and I think that sometimes shows in his attitude. Really sorry you had a cr@p experience [/quote] Last time I went there I was talking to Alex and made it quite clear that I was doing nothing more than tyre kicking (thru I did buy a cheap stand) and when I asked about a Fodera they had there he handed me a lead and said 'plug it in mate'! I've never had a problem there at all...

Seeing the reverence that some people here still seem to hold the Beatles after all this time, you can see what Lennon was getting at when he made the famous statement about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus!

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360444375' post='1970671'] Meanwhile, whoever you like as a bassplayer was influenced by Paul. How ironic. [/quote] I am sure that most of the bassplayers that I listen to have been influenced (mostly indirectly) by Willie Dixon, Bill Black, whoever played bass on Chuck Berry records and James Jamerson – Macca would be a fair way down the list (but still on it)! [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1360451772' post='1970798'] Not really, because there's no actual scale against which to measure these qualitative statements. [/quote] I am not aware of any peer reviewed scientific process that can deduce that are Beatles are over-rated by a factor of 64.3%! However, I think it is valid to question whether ‘Yesterday’ is the greatest rock & roll ballad ever written (as I have heard people state in the past), or merely a run of the mill tin pan alley tune elevated to greatness by some people, merely because it was written by the Beatles! That is not to say that everything that Fab 4 did was rubbish, or that ‘Eleanor Rigby’ and ‘A Day In The Life’ are not great creative examples of 60s pop music, just that their artistic importance has been exaggerated due to their wider cultural significance….

Very cool...! I'm also amazed at how quickly he manages to detune....

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1360443589' post='1970653'] How can anyone sensibly claim that anyone or anything as globally popular as The Beatles are over-rated? Over-rated against what? Their own personal dislike? To claim that something is over-rated because of a personal dislike is clearly nonsense. Dislike The Beatles, Microsoft, Tesco [enter own hobby-horse here] by all means, but don't make yourself look stupid by saying they are over rated. [/quote] That’s complete nonsense! By your logic (i.e. anything that is popular cannot possibly be over-rated) means that any concept of ‘over-rated’ is by definition redundant! You cannot sensibly argue that the Beatles were not of huge global significance, but you can argue that their artistic merits were exaggerated to be much greater than they were popularly perceived!