B eatle's Anthology

Chuck Cusimano · From: Weatherford, Texas, USA

Didn't a "Big Name" steel player record "Yesterday" on an album? Maybe Lloyd Green, or Jimmy Crawford? Seems like I heard it on a steel album one time, and it was beautiful. I used to work with Billy Poteet, and he played the heck out of "I can see clearly now" , (I know it's not a Beatles song) and I think he got it off a Lloyd Green record.

Also, Chet Atkins LOVED the Beatles, and recorded an album titled "Chet Atkins Picks On The Beatles". He had a great cut on "Yesterday". I wasn't a big fan of the beatles, but I'll be the first to say, they created some great music.

David Doggett · Posted 6 Jan 2006 1:23 pm

Well, those articles are certainly interesting. Apparently, analyzing Beatle influences and innovations is a whole cottage industry in itself. I think the case for Yesterday and Georgia is more that in places certain chord progressions were similar, not so much that the whole song was the same - that latter claim seems kind of lame to me. I had no idea they had over 40 originals by the time of their first big hits in 1964. I haven't quite digested that diagnonal theory stuff. The writers discuss that The Beatles threw in a lot of non-standard chords and progressions. One writer says they didn't know standard progressions. I don't see that. They were good musicians who did a lot of covers, and certainly knew the standard progressions in those. But in their own compositions, even early on, they threw in nonstandard chords and progressions, that in retrospective analysis involved some theoretical patterns that the writers are analyzing. I don't mind nonstandard progressions, but the problem is, unlike the tried and true standard progressions, nonstandard ones either grab you or not. After listening to the far out stuff in modern classical music and modern jazz, the stuff The Beatles came up with didn't seem so innovative to me, and sometimes they just didn't grab me. But younger rockers and the public obviously reacted differently. Yesterday is a good case in point. The progressions are very nonstardard for rock. However, I had heard them in romantic classical music (Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff) and in musicals. So to me, the song wasn't innovative in that since. Nevertheless, it is such a beautiful melody that it grabbed me like everyone else (it makes a great steel instrumental). So for me it was damn good song writing, but not necessarily very innovative.

Mike Perlowin · From: Los Angeles CA

Have you guys heard Joe Goldmark's "Steelin' the Beatles" CD?

As always, he does a great job. (Joe is one of my personal heros.)

Dave Mudgett · From: Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee

Or how about "Beatle Country" with The Charles River Boys (Jim Field, Bob Siggins, Joe Val, Everett Lilly, Buddy Spicher, Craig Wingfield, Eric Thompson) - probably the first bluegrass Beatles album, ca 1967.

I don't think anybody here has argued that the Beatles didn't create some great music. Frankly, "significance" and "innovation" are pretty amorphous concepts. There are academics out there trying to come up with "innovation" and "influence" metrics, to give a basis to algorithmically compute innovativeness and influence. I dunno - I can see how it's probably possible to do, but I'm not so sure how it's particularly relevant, especially in the arts, where emotional reaction is such a large part of it.

I personally agree with the typical musicologist view on the Beatles, as cited by Jeff Agnew in the earlier post, but they obviously had an unusual spark that made them unique and gave them wide appeal. Still, I have never understood the gushing royalty/demi-god worship that is often bestowed on them. YMMV.

John McGann · From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA * R.I.P.

Forum Index > Music	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5	Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic

All times are GMT - 8 Hours	Jump to: