Pop quiz, hotshot!

[jimilee]

You guys be derailing my thrad!

That's cool though - I like reading people's take on things. I go through phases with the Beatles and right now I'm in the "god-like" camp. Specifically after I listened to both of these recordings through headphones the other day.

Here's what struck me:
1) Heavy, deep bass - esp in Hey Jude. It's not a clean recording but to me it's just got so much bottom esp. considering we are not talking about distorted guitars, etc. I love it.
2) The way the mid-range/upper mids contrast with that bottom. Esp. how the vocals sit in the mix relative to the bass and drums. To me, it's like a sheet of paper going in an envelope. A perfect fit.
3) The lack of over-compression we so often have to tolerate in modern recordings. Which isn't to say there isn't any happening (I can hear a bit on the drums here and there but that also could be due to the delivery format).

Anyway, I say over and over I'm no golden-eared pony boy but both of these just really caught me off-guard me when I listened to them the other day.

I really like the mixing style they used where you have a guitar in the right speaker, one in the left and drums and bass in the middle. It is really clean and sounds great in the car. Sometimes I get so enthralled in the mix that I won't even listen to the song.

I don't really listen to them that often, but I have mad respect for everyone except Ringo. He was in the right place at the right time, and he acts like it was all him to this day. Hate that guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[peAk]

You guys be derailing my thrad!

That's cool though - I like reading people's take on things. I go through phases with the Beatles and right now I'm in the "god-like" camp. Specifically after I listened to both of these recordings through headphones the other day.

Here's what struck me:
1) Heavy, deep bass - esp in Hey Jude. It's not a clean recording but to me it's just got so much bottom esp. considering we are not talking about distorted guitars, etc. I love it.
2) The way the mid-range/upper mids contrast with that bottom. Esp. how the vocals sit in the mix relative to the bass and drums. To me, it's like a sheet of paper going in an envelope. A perfect fit.
3) The lack of over-compression we so often have to tolerate in modern recordings. Which isn't to say there isn't any happening (I can hear a bit on the drums here and there but that also could be due to the delivery format).

Anyway, I say over and over I'm no golden-eared pony boy but both of these just really caught me off-guard me when I listened to them the other day.

I really like the mixing style they used where you have a guitar in the right speaker, one in the left and drums and bass in the middle. It is really clean and sounds great in the car. Sometimes I get so enthralled in the mix that I won't even listen to the song.

I don't really listen to them that often, but I have mad respect for everyone except Ringo. He was in the right place at the right time, and he acts like it was all him to this day. Hate that guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

oh man, I love Ringo's drumming and drum sound!

[matmosphere]

Agreed Ringo was SOLID. You'd have to be to keep up with those guys.

Sure he's no Bonham, but he had some real skills. Just his fluidity with time changes puts a lot of drummers to shame.


It's been a long time since I've listened to the Beatles. I agree those first couple of records are poppy, but revolver and Sgt Peppers certainly are not.

I also don't get Elvis at all. My dad grew up in Memphis and was maybe 5 years younger than him, saw him around when he was young and knew him a little. I get why my dad was a super fan, but I don't know why anybody else is. He was a good preformed I guess.

[peAk]

Agreed Ringo was SOLID. You'd have to be to keep up with those guys.

Sure he's no Bonham, but he had some real skills. Just his fluidity with time changes puts a lot of drummers to shame.


It's been a long time since I've listened to the Beatles. I agree those first couple of records are poppy, but revolver and Sgt Peppers certainly are not.

I also don't get Elvis at all. My dad grew up in Memphis and was maybe 5 years younger than him, saw him around when he was young and knew him a little. I get why my dad was a super fan, but I don't know why anybody else is. He was a good preformed I guess.

In my 20s, I hated the Beatles. I really only knew their hits like "I want to hold your hand"...."Hard Days Night" etc.

Once I heard their later stuff, I fell in love.

I agree that their early poppy stuff was meh.

[midwayfair]

He was a good preformed I guess.

Elvis was an *incredible* performer.

You have to look at him in context. His vocals were incredibly aggressive for the mid-50s among white musicians, and his backing bands had some of the best musicians you could find. He didn't sugarcoat the blues he was singing. He didn't stow the sex appeal. He has a massive amount of ego behind his music. It's not just that you don't get aggressive popular rock and roll without him. I would argue that you don't even get Bob Dylan without him, because Elvis primed popular music for rebellion and worshiping the force of personality of the vocalist. Plus Dylan was in a way an answer to the vapidness of the pop and blues lyrics that Elvis was singing. All that charisma was going to waste. Then The Beatles in the second half of their career took Dylan's lyrical ambitiousness and coupled it with Elvis's performance skills, and that's why they're arguably the best pop group in history.

[jimilee]

You guys be derailing my thrad!

That's cool though - I like reading people's take on things. I go through phases with the Beatles and right now I'm in the "god-like" camp. Specifically after I listened to both of these recordings through headphones the other day.

Here's what struck me:
1) Heavy, deep bass - esp in Hey Jude. It's not a clean recording but to me it's just got so much bottom esp. considering we are not talking about distorted guitars, etc. I love it.
2) The way the mid-range/upper mids contrast with that bottom. Esp. how the vocals sit in the mix relative to the bass and drums. To me, it's like a sheet of paper going in an envelope. A perfect fit.
3) The lack of over-compression we so often have to tolerate in modern recordings. Which isn't to say there isn't any happening (I can hear a bit on the drums here and there but that also could be due to the delivery format).

Anyway, I say over and over I'm no golden-eared pony boy but both of these just really caught me off-guard me when I listened to them the other day.

I really like the mixing style they used where you have a guitar in the right speaker, one in the left and drums and bass in the middle. It is really clean and sounds great in the car. Sometimes I get so enthralled in the mix that I won't even listen to the song.

I don't really listen to them that often, but I have mad respect for everyone except Ringo. He was in the right place at the right time, and he acts like it was all him to this day. Hate that guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

oh man, I love Ringo's drumming and drum sound!

Lies!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Muadzin]

I don't get the stones at all.

The Beatles Grew up in bad neighborhoods, started playing when they were young (15) and kept at it and worked their butts off. They didn't have any chance to come up out of poverty from my understanding. They were scrappers and got in fights a lot because they grew up in rough areas.

The Stones met at art school. And yet they have the tough guy image not the Beatles.

Maybe because of their art background the Stones understood that image was important to rock music and that looking the rebellious part would help them. And help them in no small part to differentiate them from the Beatles, who were their rivals at the time.

What I really don't get is all the hero-worship Elvis got. As far as I know, he was a fat guy who died on the toilet, and sang songs like "Wooden Heart", and "In The Ghetto".

Personally I'm amazed his hero worship survived the 60's, with all the crappy movies. Or the 70's, when he got fat and mostly played Vegas. I reckon its a testimony to the massive impact he made in the 50's and how his fanbase stayed with him. Occasionally rejuvenated by something worthwhile again, like the Comeback Special. Which was excellent. There's probably a few other factors working here. Like with the Beatles he was one of the firsts. The first always sets the benchmark for the followup to live up to. There's probably better singers then Elvis, better composers then the Beatles, tougher rockbands then the Rolling Stones, better guitarists then Jimi Hendrix. But they got there first, made their mark and the rest has to live in their shadow.

And there's also a psychological thing going on. Ever notice when there's a mob standing there? Looking at something? What do you do? Well, join them of course to see what's going on. We humans have this herd mentality where we want to be part of the herd. Sneakers are in fashion? Everybody starts wearing them. A new club has become trendy? We wait long hours in line just to visit it. Autotune on vocals in fashion? You get nauseous from the constantly shifting vocals in EVERY DAMN SONG. We've decided long ago that Elvis and the Beatles are great. Therefore we now too consider them great. They have to be great. After all, that is what everyone keeps saying so it must be true.

I don't really listen to them that often, but I have mad respect for everyone except Ringo. He was in the right place at the right time, and he acts like it was all him to this day. Hate that guy.

So........ he's the Lars Ulrich of the Beatles?

[madbean]

Personally, I'd rather listen to Ringo than Lars. Except AJFA which has some killer drumming on it.

[EBK]

Of course, Ringo's best work was as Mr. Conductor in Shining Time Station.

[jimilee]

I don't get the stones at all.

The Beatles Grew up in bad neighborhoods, started playing when they were young (15) and kept at it and worked their butts off. They didn't have any chance to come up out of poverty from my understanding. They were scrappers and got in fights a lot because they grew up in rough areas.

The Stones met at art school. And yet they have the tough guy image not the Beatles.

Maybe because of their art background the Stones understood that image was important to rock music and that looking the rebellious part would help them. And help them in no small part to differentiate them from the Beatles, who were their rivals at the time.

What I really don't get is all the hero-worship Elvis got. As far as I know, he was a fat guy who died on the toilet, and sang songs like "Wooden Heart", and "In The Ghetto".

Personally I'm amazed his hero worship survived the 60's, with all the crappy movies. Or the 70's, when he got fat and mostly played Vegas. I reckon its a testimony to the massive impact he made in the 50's and how his fanbase stayed with him. Occasionally rejuvenated by something worthwhile again, like the Comeback Special. Which was excellent. There's probably a few other factors working here. Like with the Beatles he was one of the firsts. The first always sets the benchmark for the followup to live up to. There's probably better singers then Elvis, better composers then the Beatles, tougher rockbands then the Rolling Stones, better guitarists then Jimi Hendrix. But they got there first, made their mark and the rest has to live in their shadow.

And there's also a psychological thing going on. Ever notice when there's a mob standing there? Looking at something? What do you do? Well, join them of course to see what's going on. We humans have this herd mentality where we want to be part of the herd. Sneakers are in fashion? Everybody starts wearing them. A new club has become trendy? We wait long hours in line just to visit it. Autotune on vocals in fashion? You get nauseous from the constantly shifting vocals in EVERY DAMN SONG. We've decided long ago that Elvis and the Beatles are great. Therefore we now too consider them great. They have to be great. After all, that is what everyone keeps saying so it must be true.

I don't really listen to them that often, but I have mad respect for everyone except Ringo. He was in the right place at the right time, and he acts like it was all him to this day. Hate that guy.

So........ he's the Lars Ulrich of the Beatles?

Bwahahahaha exactly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk