>OK, but have you ever listened to rock bands such as Angra, Helloween,
Virgo or Rhapsody?? They have >orchestral arrangements everywhere, with the
difference that they know what they're doing, they themselves >compose,
arrange and some of then even conduct the orchestra and the result is much
more impressive and >musically rich than you can get from Harrison or any of
the Beatles. So, if personal preference is to be >considered, the Beatles
aren't any better ( or worse )than Metallica or Beethoven ( what confirms
that "What, >you don't like the Beatles?" as nonsensical ) , and if
musicianship is the point, then they're lost, as non->classical musicians
have done much better things than they have... but without 1/10 of the
media.
This is really funny! Ciao, I've heard these bands. they are virtuosic
players and they do experiment quite a bit, but are basically neo-metal
bands. These sort of bands are a dime a dozen- young musicians (with long
black hair of course) woodshed on their instruments and then form these sort
of band that have god-awful songs with cliched lyrics about evil demigods
and monsters! They are hilarious. Yes, they are very good at their
instruments, but that does not make a great song! If you like them, fair
enough, just don't go into a public forum denouncing the beatles, and
comparing them with the backstreet boys. I suppose you cite Marty Friedman,
Jason Becker, Petrucci, and bands like Dream theatre as your faves as well?
The beatles did some of their own arrangement, created loops (influenced by
the 60's experimental phase), incorporated modality into pop (a first),
feedback (a first), introspective lyrics, experimentation with song form,
backwards recording, (and this wasn't george martin). They are pop's
equivalent to beethoven. They created music for music's sake- they were
essentially post-romantics (aren't we all now?). To compare them with these
bands is not only pointless, it's quite funny.
Mirko
|
