|
Post by sayne on Mar 15, 2015 9:51:25 GMT -5
I just saw a trailer for a new doc on the Wrecking Crew - the musicians that played on a WHOLE lot of Top 40 hits in the 60s. I'm sure many of you know about them, so this isn't new. But, here's my "what if" question. Rank your Top 10 bands/performers (I know the Beatles would be at the top). Now, if the Beatles never played on their records or at least were majorly supplemented by a British version of the Wrecking Crew, and assuming the other bands on the list played on their own records, would you drop the Beatles down? If so, how far. Explain why or why not you would drop them. Hope you play. www.wreckingcrew.tv/
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 15, 2015 15:33:36 GMT -5
I just saw a trailer for a new doc on the Wrecking Crew - the musicians that played on a WHOLE lot of Top 40 hits in the 60s. I'm sure many of you know about them, so this isn't new. But, here's my "what if" question. Rank your Top 10 bands/performers (I know the Beatles would be at the top). Now, if the Beatles never played on their records or at least were majorly supplemented by a British version of the Wrecking Crew, and assuming the other bands on the list played on their own records, would you drop the Beatles down? If so, how far. Explain why or why not you would drop them. Hope you play. www.wreckingcrew.tv/You just described the Dave Clark 5. I'm not clear-we are to assume other bands wrote their own instruments, but the Beatles didn't? I'm playing mostly in the 60s with a couple of exceptions. I don't list the Beatles because I am also assuming they are not writing as much of their own music. The Who Pink Floyd The Rolling Stones The Kinks The Faces The Moody Blues (with an orchestra-but they still played their own instruments) The Band The Eagles Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band REM (with Berry) All of these bands for the most part created their own sound both live and in the studio. Buffalo Springfield and even the Doors and Young Rascals relied on studio musicians to fill out their music.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 15, 2015 15:35:44 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand the question.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 15, 2015 16:04:01 GMT -5
I thought the Doors played all their own instruments on their albums so I went to their Wiki. They didn't have a bassist in the band so they had one in their sessions. Other than that the did all the music. The Soft Parade had some sax, congas, trombone, fiddle and mandolin on it supplied by studio guests. John Sebastian played harmonica on Roadhouse Blues on the Morrison's Hotel album. LA Woman had a guest guitarist on a few tracks. I don't know why. Kreiger was great.
I wouldn't hardly phrase anything that implied the Doors did not play their own instruments.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 15, 2015 18:06:44 GMT -5
I thought the Doors played all their own instruments on their albums so I went to their Wiki. They didn't have a bassist in the band so they had one in their sessions. Other than that the did all the music. The Soft Parade had some sax, congas, trombone, fiddle and mandolin on it supplied by studio guests. John Sebastian played harmonica on Roadhouse Blues on the Morrison's Hotel album. LA Woman had a guest guitarist on a few tracks. I don't know why. Kreiger was great. I wouldn't hardly phrase anything that implied the Doors did not play their own instruments. Of course not, but the Rascals and the Doors not having a bassist, did not have "complete" bands. I don't count horns, strings and other accessory instruments that every band used outside forces for except for the Who (Entwistle played his own horns). I list the Buffalo Springfield because during the Neil Young transition (leaving the band), his contributions had few or no Springfield members, such as Expecting to Fly. I'm just going with the flavor of the conditions.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 15, 2015 18:17:34 GMT -5
I'm not clear-we are to assume other bands wrote their own instruments, but the Beatles didn't? I'm playing mostly in the 60s with a couple of exceptions. I don't list the Beatles because I am also assuming they are not writing as much of their own music. The Who Pink Floyd The Rolling Stones The Kinks The Faces The Moody Blues (with an orchestra-but they still played their own instruments) The Band The Eagles Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band REM (with Berry) All of these bands for the most part created their own sound both live and in the studio. Buffalo Springfield and even the Doors and Young Rascals relied on studio musicians to fill out their music. [/quote] Yes, assume the Beatles still wrote the songs (melody, chords, and lyrics), but they did not play on the records or were majorly supplemented by other drums, guitars, and bass. Symphony orchestras and strings, Indian instruments, bagpipes, and such don't count as those are specialty instruments, rather than main rock combo instruments. In other words every note you hear played on Hey Jude or Help or You've Got to Hide Your Love Away or Paperback Writer or the Ballad of John and Yoko, etc were played by others completely or along side the Beatles to make up for weaknesses.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 15, 2015 18:19:46 GMT -5
I'm not clear-we are to assume other bands wrote their own instruments, but the Beatles didn't? I'm playing mostly in the 60s with a couple of exceptions. I don't list the Beatles because I am also assuming they are not writing as much of their own music. The Who Pink Floyd The Rolling Stones The Kinks The Faces The Moody Blues (with an orchestra-but they still played their own instruments) The Band The Eagles Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band REM (with Berry) All of these bands for the most part created their own sound both live and in the studio. Buffalo Springfield and even the Doors and Young Rascals relied on studio musicians to fill out their music. Yes, assume the Beatles still wrote the songs (melody, chords, and lyrics), but they did not play on the records or were majorly supplemented by other drums, guitars, and bass. Symphony orchestras and strings, Indian instruments, bagpipes, and such don't count as those are specialty instruments, rather than main rock combo instruments. In other words every note you hear played on Hey Jude or Help or You've Got to Hide Your Love Away or Paperback Writer or the Ballad of John and Yoko, etc were played by others completely or along side the Beatles to make up for weaknesses.[/quote] I said "wrote their own instruments"? Whoops... If they fall into the Monkees post Headquarter album formula for Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn and Jones (Monkees heavily augmented by the Wrecking Crew)AND write their own songs, then around no. 5, knocking out REM.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 15, 2015 18:21:18 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand the question. We know the Beatles played their instruments on records. With the exception of horns and strings, Billy Preston and George Martin on Keys, Eric Clapton on guitar, every traditional rock instrument was played by the lads. But, suppose they weren't, like the Monkees or other bands that used the Wrecking Crew? Would you still rate the Beatles as the top of the toppermost? Hope I cleared it up.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Mar 15, 2015 22:57:44 GMT -5
The Beatles were the Toppermost of the Poppermost with respect to playing their instruments on their recordings. So were the Hollies. This was in the UK, remember.
The LA scene was a lot different, it seems. I'm gonna see The Wrecking Crew movie sometime after March 27. I'll be in DC when it premieres there and that's most likely where I'll see it.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 15, 2015 23:05:16 GMT -5
The Beatles were the Toppermost of the Poppermost with respect to playing their instruments on their recordings. So were the Hollies. This was in the UK, remember. The LA scene was a lot different, it seems. I'm gonna see The Wrecking Crew movie sometime after March 27. I'll be in DC when it premieres there and that's most likely where I'll see it. So where would you have rated them if the UK were like LA and the Beatles did not play on their records, but only wrote the songs?
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Mar 15, 2015 23:16:39 GMT -5
Hell, I don't know. The London A&R guys had a stable of professional musicians they could bring in to play on recordings.
I think it's noteworthy that, barring George Martin's reluctance to use Ringo (because of the negative experience with Pete Best), there was no other hesitation to put the band's instrumentation on record.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 16, 2015 5:08:42 GMT -5
I can't shift myself into a mindset necessary to play this game. Sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 5:44:27 GMT -5
The Beatles...the original Milli Vanilli....Fortunately, that is way not so
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Mar 16, 2015 11:38:19 GMT -5
A top 25 Non-Beatles list 1. The Who 2. The Kinks 3. The Rolling Stones 4. REM 5. U2 6. The Moody Blues 7. Simon & Garffunkel 8. The Beach Boys 9. The Byrds 10. CCR 11. ELO 12. Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers 13. Jonathan Richman & the Modern Lovers 14. The Rapsberries 15. The Zombies 16. The Small Faces 17. The Black Keys 18. Abba 19. Green Day 20. The Beau Brummels 21. The Hollies 22. Crosby, Stills, Nash (& Young) 23. The Velvet Underground 24. The Doors 25. The Pretenders
I think the Beatles would still rank pretty highly-possibly as high as #5.
I would also rate the Beatles ahead of all other groups who didn't play their own instruments and/or didn't write their own songs.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 17, 2015 17:47:07 GMT -5
I can't get me head 'round this like.
Are we talking sort of this situation?
Liverpool band (in this case Frankie Goes to Hollywood) both before and after Trevor Horn's overlayed production methods.
Even so I still don't really get the concept of the question.
Is the question really "If the Beatles wrote good songs but could not play well enough to record their own records would you still think they were great as you do?"
In fact I'm with Vectis on this one. I think I'll just pass.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 17, 2015 22:16:01 GMT -5
Is the question really "If the Beatles wrote good songs but could not play well enough to record their own records would you still think they were great as you do?" Basically, yes. You've got it. Easy.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 17, 2015 22:31:16 GMT -5
That's hard because even the songs might not be as good if studio musicians were used because many of the early recordings in particular are so idiosyncratic to the Beatles style of playing. "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You" might sound square if the instruments were played by studio musicians even if they were light years better musicians than The Beatles themselves. The quirks and nuances of those recordings that we love would be gone.
The Beatles would still be high on my list because the songs are so good and we would still have that heavenly singing of John, Paul and George.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Mar 19, 2015 17:09:35 GMT -5
The Beatles would still be high on my list because the songs are so good and we would still have that heavenly singing of John, Paul and George. Very true. I'd still probably consider my favorite singers/songwriters.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 19, 2015 19:26:07 GMT -5
Is the question really "If the Beatles wrote good songs but could not play well enough to record their own records would you still think they were great as you do?" Basically, yes. You've got it. Easy. Oh, I understand now. No. Can we play something else, please?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Mar 19, 2015 22:40:36 GMT -5
. . . The Beatles would still be high on my list because the songs are so good and we would still have that heavenly singing of John, Paul and George. Guess that's a "yes" that you would drop them from the top. I bet I know which band would give you the satisfaction of being at the top.
|
|