DDD Home Page
DDD Music Lists Page
DDD Movie Lists Page
It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1042 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 ... 70  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:36 pm
Posts: 3275
Location: Berlin, Germany
boo boo wrote:
pauldrach wrote:
I honestly think that trying to be ambitious and failing miserably is much worse, than aiming for a lower standard but at least achieving your goals.


No. That is absolutely fucking wrong.

I see this argument being used by defenders of stupid Hollywood blockbusters all the time. A flawed work of genuine expression and vision still has way more artistic merit than a perfectly executed souless product aimed at people with low standards. This is why I think Tales From Topographic Oceans is still a better album than NSync's Greatest Hits.

It's why The White Album is still held up in higher regard than The Beatles first couple of albums which were way more consistant but also very cookie cutter.

I'd rather have a work of art that has amazing highs but miserable lows than something that is just consistantly plain and mediocre.

You didn't get my point. I'm not talking about lyricists with high highs and low lows, which probably applies to most of the artists on this list anyway. I'm talking about lyricists who think they are extremely smart if they use heaps of cool sounding words of Latin/Greek/generally foreign origin, write about epic topics, use imagery that doesn't actually mean anything at all, etc. That shit certainly pisses me off more than *NSYNC's poetry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:36 pm
Posts: 12340
pauldrach wrote:
boo boo wrote:
pauldrach wrote:
I honestly think that trying to be ambitious and failing miserably is much worse, than aiming for a lower standard but at least achieving your goals.


No. That is absolutely fucking wrong.

I see this argument being used by defenders of stupid Hollywood blockbusters all the time. A flawed work of genuine expression and vision still has way more artistic merit than a perfectly executed souless product aimed at people with low standards. This is why I think Tales From Topographic Oceans is still a better album than NSync's Greatest Hits.

It's why The White Album is still held up in higher regard than The Beatles first couple of albums which were way more consistant but also very cookie cutter.

I'd rather have a work of art that has amazing highs but miserable lows than something that is just consistantly plain and mediocre.

You didn't get my point. I'm not talking about lyricists with high highs and low lows, which probably applies to most of the artists on this list anyway. I'm talking about lyricists who think they are extremely smart if they use heaps of cool sounding words of Latin/Greek/generally foreign origin, write about epic topics, use imagery that doesn't actually mean anything at all, etc. That shit certainly pisses me off more than *NSYNC's poetry.


I don't see the point in getting pissed off over that. Music doesn't mean anything, it's just arranged sound. I don't see why lyrics have to be coherent. Hell if surrealism has proved anything it's that nothing has to be coherent.

And most of the bands guilty of that kind of stuff (prog and metal bands) emphasize the music over everything else. That is their talent, composing and performing music. Not every rock band is gonna have an award winning poet in their ensemble, doesn't mean they have to do only instrumentals. Not all music has to tell a story, the words a singer chooses can be thought of the same way as techniques used for playing guitar or other instruments.

I see nothing wrong with singing a word just because of how it sounds.

I mean The Beatles have a song where the backing vocals during the bridge are just saying the word "tit" over and over, and it works.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:46 pm 
Offline
moderator

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:05 am
Posts: 1922
boo boo wrote:
pauldrach wrote:
boo boo wrote:
pauldrach wrote:
I honestly think that trying to be ambitious and failing miserably is much worse, than aiming for a lower standard but at least achieving your goals.


No. That is absolutely fucking wrong.

I see this argument being used by defenders of stupid Hollywood blockbusters all the time. A flawed work of genuine expression and vision still has way more artistic merit than a perfectly executed souless product aimed at people with low standards. This is why I think Tales From Topographic Oceans is still a better album than NSync's Greatest Hits.

It's why The White Album is still held up in higher regard than The Beatles first couple of albums which were way more consistant but also very cookie cutter.

I'd rather have a work of art that has amazing highs but miserable lows than something that is just consistantly plain and mediocre.

You didn't get my point. I'm not talking about lyricists with high highs and low lows, which probably applies to most of the artists on this list anyway. I'm talking about lyricists who think they are extremely smart if they use heaps of cool sounding words of Latin/Greek/generally foreign origin, write about epic topics, use imagery that doesn't actually mean anything at all, etc. That shit certainly pisses me off more than *NSYNC's poetry.


I don't see the point in getting pissed off over that. Music doesn't mean anything, it's just arranged sound. I don't see why lyrics have to be coherent. Hell if surrealism has proved anything it's that nothing has to be coherent.

And most of the bands guilty of that kind of stuff (prog and metal bands) emphasize the music over everything else. That is their talent, composing and performing music. Not every rock band is gonna have an award winning poet in their ensemble, doesn't mean they have to do only instrumentals. Not all music has to tell a story, the words a singer chooses can be thought of the same way as techniques used for playing guitar or other instruments.

I see nothing wrong with singing a word just because of how it sounds.

I mean The Beatles have a song where the backing vocals during the bridge are just saying the word "tit" over and over, and it works.


This I disagree with, especially music doesn't mean anything, it's just arranged sound. Music has tons of meaning, most of the time that's why people write it, they can tell a story and share emotions through sound. What really shows a good musician to me is if they are able to convey that meaning to other people consistently through just their music. Music has tons of meaning, and lyrics can add additional depth. The point of writing most lyrics is to enhance the purpose of the song if not explain it. If you want to just use words because they sound good, fine, but it still adds something to the point of the song instead of taking away from it or doing nothing at all. If it did either of the latter then the lyrics would be terrible as it serves no purpose to the song.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:08 am 
Offline
moderator

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:17 pm
Posts: 3832
Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
As the biggest Beatles fan I know, I've found over the years to pleasantly surprised at how many people regard Harrison as the most talented beatle, with Lennon as the smartest. My Mom's favorite Beatle, and most of my friends, was surprisngly, always Harrison. However, I would say after my mega research on all things Beatle, Lennon was the most talented by a large margin, with Harrison in second, Macca 3rd, and Ringo last. I always feel bad cutting Ringo and Macca short, because both are so genius at what they do, however Macca had the most talent in the band at multiple things (being extremely beast on bass and vocals, and a competent drummer and guitar player, though nowhere on the level of Ringo and Harrison). However, Lennon was the one who set 90% of the actual songwriting (music theory wise) and all the creative things applied to recording, reverse guitar recordings, tunings, and all other stuff like that was generally lennon, and then Harrison with the experimental stuff. The majority of lyrics and chord progressions in songs that blew me away, to my surprise, were mainly written by Lennon as well. Macca of course collaborated on all the songs, but when you get into the nitty gritty, Lennon was the Beatles in a way for song writing, even though it's all Lennon/Macca. The Macca songs written in the Beatles solely by him are extremely differentiable from the Lennon songs. Same with Harrison, they all had distinct writing styles, and when examined, I'd say talent in music goes Lennon, Harrison, Macca, Ringo IMO.


Wow. I can't see any case for saying that Harrison was more talented than McCartney. Paul was actually pretty close to George as a guitarist--The 910 (Beatles fan zine I contributed a couple of things to) did an interesting article years ago making the case for Paul being better. I don't quite buy that, but when you add in Paul's amazing bass playing and his versatility (he's certainly not in Ringo's universe as a drummer, for instance, but he's competent), Paul's the more talented musician. I don't know what you mean about John doing 90% of the songwriting "music theory wise" but Paul was way more accomplished than George as a songwriter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:36 pm
Posts: 12340
And yet George has the best solo album of any Beatle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:04 am 
Offline
moderator

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:05 am
Posts: 1922
Paul was a more accomplished instrumentalist and vocalist because of his mad bass abilities and his singing, plus competency in every other instrument. Harrison has him beat in everything else. Harrison is definitely the better, and more consistent lyricist with more linguistic ability than Macca, and wins in just about everything else, including song writing IMO. Macca had his brilliant moments, Harrison had more. This was made more obvious if you look at any of Maccas solo music or Wings, the song writing is not that great, if not just plain bubble gum pop or pop-rock, not much experimentation or complex writing, and nothing that's not either labeled good ol paul (and that's the good stuff) to just plain generic. Not saying it needs to be complex or experimental, but it didn't contain the feeling or power of other compositions, and felt lackluster and generic. I never liked Wings much, mainly because it had a Beatle, and yet radiated with mediocrity or just pure paul-ness (which was their really good stuff, and by Paul ness I mean how his songs in the beatles that were 99% him have a distinct sound and feeling very different from the lennon collabs and Lennon solo pieces). Harrisons solo career however showed a larger display of talent in not just songwriting, but creativity. Then look at their beatles work. The more I researched the Beatles and their days together, how they came up with songs, what they did and how they did it, since the band was once to me seemingly shrouded in mystery. It's the greatest band ever and yet no one knows how they wrote and came up with half of their stuff, which is the most genius music in rock history. There are few to none recordings of their time in Abbey road studios and very few videos of group interview, if any interviews about their time in Abbey Road studios and what they did except in exerpts of single person interviews, even Let it Be has no DVD release and is very hard to find, and was heavily cut to not reveal a lot of what really went one, and even if it's their break up, it's the longest recorded footage of the Beatles writing music. No one knows how they made some of their groundbreaking techniques, some of the sounds they produced (the notes used in the tonal cluster of the opening note in hard days night and the piano ending note in A Day in the Life are, for god knows what reason, still heavily debated because no one can figure out what made those sounds, most are wrong if they even label it a chord or group of them, since it's really a tonal cluster that would need to be picked apart piece by piece). The more I found out about their writing, what they did, and the more I saw whatever footage of their time in Abbey Road studios, the interviews and writings from them about song production, and the evidence from their earlier days when they toured, surprisingly point to a major Lennon dominance in song writing. The things Macca got out earlier were not really special in any way, it's not truly till Revolver where I feel Macca reached his songwriting maturity, and I never felt he reached that level since, except for Black Bird and Fool on the Hill, nothing compares to his 4 masterpieces on revolver, all of which I'd say are his best next to Yesterday (the three ballads and Got to Get You Into my Life). Harrison on the other hand, if not already done by Lennon, would suggest the majority of strange chord progressions and arrangements, not to mention addition of sitar and other eastern instruments, and then concocting odd tuning and different feedback methods to bring out the desired sounds, most of which he learned from Lennon. Then he became the most isolated Beatle, keeping much to himself and doing most of his work on his own. At the end, he came out on top on Abbey Road and White Album writing 3 of the quintessential top 10 beatles songs of all time on most lists, completely on his own, two of which I feel vastly surpass any songwriting ability Paul has ever shown (I'm sorry, I think While My Guitar Gently Weeps showcases better songwriting than Eleanor Rigby, it's close, but Weeps wins IMO, there, I said it) while the other 7 tend to be a mix of pure Lennon compositions or Lennon/Macca mixes that were mainly written by Lennon. Name a Beatles song, I'll tell you how it was written and who made the primary creative ideas. In songwriting ability, Lennon was leaps and bounds ahead of the rest, then Harrison developed an ability that surpassed Macca, while Macca fell into the Wings period, and earlier, never returned to the heights of Revolver.

Long ass post


Last edited by Classic Rock Junkie on Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:36 am 
Offline
moderator

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:05 am
Posts: 1922
And by being surprised at how much Lennon wrote, here's an example of songs you may not know how much Lennon actually did with them:

A Hard Day's Night was completely written by Lennon, Day Tripper was primarily as in 90% Lennon, including everything from chord progression to guitar riff and most of the lyrics, She Loves You was primarily Lennon as well. I Feel Fine, a very important song in Beatles creativity development, was fully written by Lennon as well. Help was all Lennon, along with Ticket To Ride.

This is showing how many of the huge 1 hit collabs were mainly Lennon, his obvious masterpieces and most famous Beatles tracks are obvious (All You Need is Love, Lucy in the Sky, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day in the Life, Nowhere Man, In My Life, Norwegian Wood, And Your Bird can Sing, Tomorrow Never Knows, I am the Walrus, etc.) I don't need to keep going into how vastly superior a songwriter Lennon was to Macca, but lets compare Macca's best to Harrison's, since I've already covered their solo careers:

The more you look at it, the less you find out Paul actually did, and the more you look at his nearly all his compositions, the more you find out lennons 'tweaks' are what the songs are more known for. That leaves Paul with his few completely original works to himself that are masterpiece level: Eleanor Rigby (still debated but I'm obviously giving this to Paul, it's stupid debate since it's unanimous except by Lennon that Paul wrote it all), Here There and Everywhere, For No One, Yesterday, Got to Get you Into My Life, The Long and Winding Road, Hey Jude, Can't Buy Me Love, and Let It Be. I think those are generally considered Pauls best. Take the 4 best from those, I'd assume we all get Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday, Blackbird or Here There and Everywhere, and Hey Jude to be his best solo compositions for songwriting display (Let it Be, though popular is a very straightforward piece that never impressed me, even emotionally, but maybe it's just me, and Can't Buy Me Love, though one of my favorite Beatles songs, doesn't impress me writing wise). Take those four and compare them to Harrisons 5 masterpieces: While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Something, Taxman, and Here Comes the Sun or Within you Without you. Take 4 vs. 4, and I'd say Harrison wins. Hey Jude is Hey Jude, but other than the outro I never found the song musically impressive. That being said, it has pretty much a whole orchestra in the song, tons of instrumentalists. That being said, it's heavily influenced and based around the orchestration used by Brian Wilson in pet sounds, where most of Macca's future orchestrations were either heavily influenced by or stylistically borrowed (I've even heard Macca admit this). Yesterday trumps ship, but I'd still say songwriting wise, While My Guitar and Something are equally potent and complex, if not more so. Complexity not being all, just can you write something that sounds great, emotional, and carries heavy meaning in it's chords, once more, Something has that as well as Here Comes the Sun with it's brimming optimism to match Yesterdays regret and yearning.

Long posts are long, either way, tl;dr, Harrison wins IMO


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:48 am 
Offline
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 1408
Very interesting posts, thanks CRJ. People today often assume or argue that Macca was 'the genius' in the Beatles and it's refreshing and informative to hear another opinion.

Have you ever read Alan Pollack's 'Notes On...' series?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:26 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:52 pm
Posts: 2600
Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
The more you look at it, the less you find out Paul actually did, and the more you look at his nearly all his compositions


Not to someone who has different tastes from what you have. To most people, "Let It Be" and "Can't Buy Me Love" are greater songs than "Taxman" or "Within You Without You". McCartney also has lots of other great songs that you didn't mention. And I don't think George is even close to being as good a vocalist as Paul. I think Paul came closer to being John's equal in talent than George came to Paul.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:46 pm 
Offline
moderator

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:17 pm
Posts: 3832
Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Paul was a more accomplished instrumentalist and vocalist because of his mad bass abilities and his singing, plus competency in every other instrument. Harrison has him beat in everything else. Harrison is definitely the better, and more consistent lyricist with more linguistic ability than Macca, and wins in just about everything else, including song writing IMO. Macca had his brilliant moments, Harrison had more. This was made more obvious if you look at any of Maccas solo music or Wings, the song writing is not that great, if not just plain bubble gum pop or pop-rock, not much experimentation or complex writing, and nothing that's not either labeled good ol paul (and that's the good stuff) to just plain generic.


That's just so completely removed from reality. If you think Paul has only been writing "plain bubble gum pop or pop-rock", you probably are only familiar with his big hits. And even then, you're ignoring things like "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" and "Band On The Run" which were very complex and innovative. Paul has an incredibly deep catalog and he's written in just about every style you can think of, not to mention the fact that he's developing a catalog of serious classical music. After All Things Must Pass, George's solo career was spotty at best. It's hard to think of a song of George's post-ATMP which approaches the importance of "Band On The Run" or "Maybe I'm Amazed" or "Live And Let Die".

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Not saying it needs to be complex or experimental, but it didn't contain the feeling or power of other compositions, and felt lackluster and generic. I never liked Wings much, mainly because it had a Beatle, and yet radiated with mediocrity or just pure paul-ness (which was their really good stuff, and by Paul ness I mean how his songs in the beatles that were 99% him have a distinct sound and feeling very different from the lennon collabs and Lennon solo pieces).


Your opinion.

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Harrisons solo career however showed a larger display of talent in not just songwriting, but creativity.


How so?

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Then look at their beatles work. The more I researched the Beatles and their days together, how they came up with songs, what they did and how they did it, since the band was once to me seemingly shrouded in mystery. It's the greatest band ever and yet no one knows how they wrote and came up with half of their stuff, which is the most genius music in rock history. There are few to none recordings of their time in Abbey road studios and very few videos of group interview, if any interviews about their time in Abbey Road studios and what they did except in exerpts of single person interviews, even Let it Be has no DVD release and is very hard to find, and was heavily cut to not reveal a lot of what really went one, and even if it's their break up, it's the longest recorded footage of the Beatles writing music. No one knows how they made some of their groundbreaking techniques,


Have you read Alan Pollack? Mark Lewisohn? Tim Riley? Doug Sulpy? The Beatles are very well documented.

Gotta go to a tutoring appointment...will respond to the second post later tonight.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:48 pm 
Offline
moderator

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:05 am
Posts: 1922
I never said George had any vocal talent, i said that's where Macca was. This was purely a songwriting argument, mainly focusing on the creativity and depth of the composition, as well as music theory involved. Paul did have tons of other great songs, I tried to pick the publicly considered best, though that's hard to do as well. I think The Long and Winding Road and We can work it out are better than Hey Jude, but that's an opinion, I tried to go with what most would consider. Hey Jude and Can't Buy Me Love are catchy pop songs, with Hey Jude having quite a bit of musical depth, but form a song writing perspective, how actually good is Can't Buy Me Love? Like 8 Days a Week, it was churned out quickly when the record companies were requesting more singles, and they wrote both very quickly (8 Days being Lennon and Buy Love Macca), at separate times of course, but both were concocted to be the most basic and easiest songs to write that would make money. Lennon was very disappointed in 8 Days a week and is one of his least favorite compositions, as he's stated in many interviews, and I love that song. Similarly, Macca was not fully happy with what Can't Buy me Love could have been, but he still loves the song, but admits it's not a song that requires songwriting skill, and wasn't intended to. It goes to show their talent that both were able to churn out number 1 hits at will and new how to make such songs, however, songwriting ability is very hard to judge, but the depth of production I'd give mostly to Harrison, as his songwriting tended to be more complex, and if not, I felt contained more musical depth and wit then most of Paul's pieces. This is all an opinion of course, but the more I research, the more I find out how many Harrison lovers there are, especially among music critics. Then I researched their opinions, and Harrisons songwriting talent was not only great by the end of the beatles career, but as I've said continued to grow in his solo career, while Macca started to fall short. Instrumentally, Macca was the most skilled Beatle undeniably, talent overall? That opinion is hard to find. However, from songwriting, with lyrics added, I think Harrison is superior, and I just stated the evidence that led me to my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:57 pm 
Offline
moderator

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:05 am
Posts: 1922
Brett Alan wrote:
Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Paul was a more accomplished instrumentalist and vocalist because of his mad bass abilities and his singing, plus competency in every other instrument. Harrison has him beat in everything else. Harrison is definitely the better, and more consistent lyricist with more linguistic ability than Macca, and wins in just about everything else, including song writing IMO. Macca had his brilliant moments, Harrison had more. This was made more obvious if you look at any of Maccas solo music or Wings, the song writing is not that great, if not just plain bubble gum pop or pop-rock, not much experimentation or complex writing, and nothing that's not either labeled good ol paul (and that's the good stuff) to just plain generic.



That's just so completely removed from reality. If you think Paul has only been writing "plain bubble gum pop or pop-rock", you probably are only familiar with his big hits. And even then, you're ignoring things like "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" and "Band On The Run" which were very complex and innovative. Paul has an incredibly deep catalog and he's written in just about every style you can think of, not to mention the fact that he's developing a catalog of serious classical music. After All Things Must Pass, George's solo career was spotty at best. It's hard to think of a song of George's post-ATMP which approaches the importance of "Band On The Run" or "Maybe I'm Amazed" or "Live And Let Die".


I know every song Macca's every written, every one. I have every Beatles song and every Beatle's solo career song. After the Beatles, he wrote in two styles, bubble gum pop/pop rock and Macca style. Uncle Albert/Band on the Run/Maybe I'm Amazed are all the Macca style I'm talking about, and as I said, that's the really good stuff. Band on the Run is great songwriting, and Maybe I'm Amazed I've said many times is one of my favorite songs, but musically it's not complex or influential. Live and Let Die is a terrific song as well, but the gems are all listable, and nearly everyone will name the same ones from Macca's post-Beatles career, the amount of okay or just good songwriting post Beatles far outways the great ones. I'd have a hard time believing either Band on the Run or Maybe I'm Amazed are as important as My Sweet Lord. His stuff that no ones seems to know about is also far more musically complex than Maybe I'm Amazed or Live and Let Die. I'm not saying Macca is a bad songwriter, he is one of the best of all time, but in the Beatles, the song writing duo of Lennon Macca that we have at Number one has such a huge difference between Lennon and Macca's contributions that Macca falls closer to George than Lennon, if not George surpassing Macca. Now this is all an opinion, but assuming my statements are because I haven't heard Macca's songs when I've gone into detail about which ones are which baffles me, unless you aren't familiar with all of Harrison's post Beatles work, it's way more than just All Things Must Pass


Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Not saying it needs to be complex or experimental, but it didn't contain the feeling or power of other compositions, and felt lackluster and generic. I never liked Wings much, mainly because it had a Beatle, and yet radiated with mediocrity or just pure paul-ness (which was their really good stuff, and by Paul ness I mean how his songs in the beatles that were 99% him have a distinct sound and feeling very different from the lennon collabs and Lennon solo pieces).


Your opinion.

I've said it's my opinion

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Harrisons solo career however showed a larger display of talent in not just songwriting, but creativity.


How so?

Musical complexity, instrumental use and combinations, Macca when going solo added plenty of orchestrated instruments and used odd time signatures and changes, but it reached no where near the creativity of many of George's tuning, use of Eastern instruments, use of feedback and sound modulation, and Macca's drum lines were always boring and uncreative while George had produced rhythmic lines of either increased complexity or used some very cool percussion equipment, Macca used many too though, but I don't feel to the extent of George. At the same time, George also used complex time sigs and rhythm changes, arguably to the degree of Macca if not further

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Then look at their beatles work. The more I researched the Beatles and their days together, how they came up with songs, what they did and how they did it, since the band was once to me seemingly shrouded in mystery. It's the greatest band ever and yet no one knows how they wrote and came up with half of their stuff, which is the most genius music in rock history. There are few to none recordings of their time in Abbey road studios and very few videos of group interview, if any interviews about their time in Abbey Road studios and what they did except in exerpts of single person interviews, even Let it Be has no DVD release and is very hard to find, and was heavily cut to not reveal a lot of what really went one, and even if it's their break up, it's the longest recorded footage of the Beatles writing music. No one knows how they made some of their groundbreaking techniques,


Have you read Alan Pollack? Mark Lewisohn? Tim Riley? Doug Sulpy? The Beatles are very well documented.

Gotta go to a tutoring appointment...will respond to the second post later tonight.

Seen all of those, read all of those, that's where I get this information


responses in bold


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:58 pm 
Offline
moderator

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:17 pm
Posts: 3832
Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Brett Alan wrote:


That's just so completely removed from reality. If you think Paul has only been writing "plain bubble gum pop or pop-rock", you probably are only familiar with his big hits. And even then, you're ignoring things like "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" and "Band On The Run" which were very complex and innovative. Paul has an incredibly deep catalog and he's written in just about every style you can think of, not to mention the fact that he's developing a catalog of serious classical music. After All Things Must Pass, George's solo career was spotty at best. It's hard to think of a song of George's post-ATMP which approaches the importance of "Band On The Run" or "Maybe I'm Amazed" or "Live And Let Die".


I know every song Macca's every written, every one. I have every Beatles song and every Beatle's solo career song. After the Beatles, he wrote in two styles, bubble gum pop/pop rock and Macca style. Uncle Albert/Band on the Run/Maybe I'm Amazed are all the Macca style I'm talking about, and as I said, that's the really good stuff.


Really? Which of those two styles is "Pretty Little Head"? What about "Used To Be Bad"? "Warm And Beautiful"? "Strawberries Ocean Ships Forest"? "Footprints"? "Long Leather Coat"? "The End Of The End"? Explain to me how any of those are bubblegum or, if they aren't, how they're all the same style.

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Band on the Run is great songwriting, and Maybe I'm Amazed I've said many times is one of my favorite songs, but musically it's not complex or influential. Live and Let Die is a terrific song as well, but the gems are all listable, and nearly everyone will name the same ones from Macca's post-Beatles career, the amount of okay or just good songwriting post Beatles far outways the great ones.


Well, everyone will list the same ones because they're the most original and/or interesting of his hits, and most people only know the hits. You don't think everyone will name the same songs from George, too?

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
I'd have a hard time believing either Band on the Run or Maybe I'm Amazed are as important as My Sweet Lord.


There's no question in my mind.

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
His stuff that no ones seems to know about is also far more musically complex than Maybe I'm Amazed or Live and Let Die.


Examples?

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
I'm not saying Macca is a bad songwriter, he is one of the best of all time, but in the Beatles, the song writing duo of Lennon Macca that we have at Number one has such a huge difference between Lennon and Macca's contributions that Macca falls closer to George than Lennon, if not George surpassing Macca. Now this is all an opinion, but assuming my statements are because I haven't heard Macca's songs when I've gone into detail about which ones are which baffles me, unless you aren't familiar with all of Harrison's post Beatles work, it's way more than just All Things Must Pass


I assumed they were because you hadn't heard Macca's songs because your characterizations just didn't make sense for the bulk of his catalog.

I know Harrison's work very well, too. And there are great songs in there--I yield to no one in my love for "Blow Away" or "Any Road"--but I don't see where it's as diverse or well-written as Paul's much larger catalog.

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Brett Alan wrote:
Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Harrisons solo career however showed a larger display of talent in not just songwriting, but creativity.


How so?

Musical complexity, instrumental use and combinations, Macca when going solo added plenty of orchestrated instruments and used odd time signatures and changes, but it reached no where near the creativity of many of George's tuning, use of Eastern instruments, use of feedback and sound modulation, and Macca's drum lines were always boring and uncreative while George had produced rhythmic lines of either increased complexity or used some very cool percussion equipment, Macca used many too though, but I don't feel to the extent of George. At the same time, George also used complex time sigs and rhythm changes, arguably to the degree of Macca if not further


Can you be more specific? What solo George songs were so innovative or used such complex elements? I'll admit that I don't know much about time signatures and some of the more technical aspects of composition, so I don't think I'll be able to tell you what Paul did in those areas, but I'd like to know what specific songs you're thinking of here.

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Brett Alan wrote:
Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
Then look at their beatles work. The more I researched the Beatles and their days together, how they came up with songs, what they did and how they did it, since the band was once to me seemingly shrouded in mystery. It's the greatest band ever and yet no one knows how they wrote and came up with half of their stuff, which is the most genius music in rock history. There are few to none recordings of their time in Abbey road studios and very few videos of group interview, if any interviews about their time in Abbey Road studios and what they did except in exerpts of single person interviews, even Let it Be has no DVD release and is very hard to find, and was heavily cut to not reveal a lot of what really went one, and even if it's their break up, it's the longest recorded footage of the Beatles writing music. No one knows how they made some of their groundbreaking techniques,


Have you read Alan Pollack? Mark Lewisohn? Tim Riley? Doug Sulpy? The Beatles are very well documented.

Gotta go to a tutoring appointment...will respond to the second post later tonight.

Seen all of those, read all of those, that's where I get this information


Well, I think a lot of those questions have been answered there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:11 pm 
Offline
moderator

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:17 pm
Posts: 3832
Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
And by being surprised at how much Lennon wrote, here's an example of songs you may not know how much Lennon actually did with them:

A Hard Day's Night was completely written by Lennon, Day Tripper was primarily as in 90% Lennon, including everything from chord progression to guitar riff and most of the lyrics, She Loves You was primarily Lennon as well. I Feel Fine, a very important song in Beatles creativity development, was fully written by Lennon as well. Help was all Lennon, along with Ticket To Ride.


I would say that Paul wrote way more than 10% of "Day Tripper", but the rest are clearly Lennon songs, yes.

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
This is showing how many of the huge 1 hit collabs were mainly Lennon,


Do you mean their number one hits? Because of the 27 on 1--that is, songs that hit #1 in the US or UK--13 are clearly McCartney songs, plus a couple of true L/M collaborations.

Classic Rock Junkie wrote:
The more you look at it, the less you find out Paul actually did, and the more you look at his nearly all his compositions, the more you find out lennons 'tweaks' are what the songs are more known for. That leaves Paul with his few completely original works to himself that are masterpiece level: Eleanor Rigby (still debated but I'm obviously giving this to Paul, it's stupid debate since it's unanimous except by Lennon that Paul wrote it all), Here There and Everywhere, For No One, Yesterday, Got to Get you Into My Life, The Long and Winding Road, Hey Jude, Can't Buy Me Love, and Let It Be. I think those are generally considered Pauls best. Take the 4 best from those, I'd assume we all get Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday, Blackbird or Here There and Everywhere, and Hey Jude to be his best solo compositions for songwriting display (Let it Be, though popular is a very straightforward piece that never impressed me, even emotionally, but maybe it's just me, and Can't Buy Me Love, though one of my favorite Beatles songs, doesn't impress me writing wise). Take those four and compare them to Harrisons 5 masterpieces: While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Something, Taxman, and Here Comes the Sun or Within you Without you. Take 4 vs. 4, and I'd say Harrison wins.


Well, for the moment, let's say that's true. What about the other 5? What other 4 songs by George would you put up with them?

Now how about "Penny Lane", "Helter Skelter", "Paperback Writer", "We Can Work It Out", "The Fool On The Hill", "She's Leaving Home", "Michelle", and "Blackbird". What additional Harrison songs would you put up against those? These are songs that are absolute classics and were important songs in the evolution of rock and roll.

And that's not even getting into things like his role in the Abbey Road medley or the conception of Pepper as an album.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 100 Greatest Lyricists Of Rock 'n' Roll
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:52 pm
Posts: 2600
When Avery left the site, did anyone talk to Lew about editing this list? The reason I asked is that Avery has now returned, so if no one else has checked with Lew about editing the list, I'll check with Avery to see if he still wants to do it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1042 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 ... 70  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:

DigitalDreamDoor.com   

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

DigitalDreamDoor Forum is one part of a music and movie list website whose owner has given its visitors
the privilege to discuss music and movies, and has no control and cannot in any way be held liable over
how, or by whom this board is used. If you read or see anything inappropriate that has been posted,
contact webmaster@digitaldreamdoor.com. Comments in the forum are reviewed before list updates.
Topics include rock music, metal, rap, hip-hop, blues, jazz, songs, albums, guitar, drums, musicians...


DDD Home Page | DDD Music Lists Page | DDD Movie Lists Page