What are you listening to right now?

[stui magpie]

I listened to Now and Then once and that will do me.

Ditto. I don't dislike The Beatles but they're not my preferred choice to listen to. They played a lot of Beatles on MMM when Paul was touring recently. I can listen to it as background music, but that's it. I wouldn't have gone to one of his concerts if you payed me.

[Pies4shaw]

^ It didn't really occur to me to go and see Paul. He's over 80 and he can't hit the notes required for many of his songs. I considered it carefully because I have never seen him live and knew that if I didn't go this time, I would never see him perform live but, ultimately, I don't think it's ever sensible to go see musicians for nostalgia. I go and see old people play and sing from time to time - but, generally, they're people of remarkable technical capability who still cut it (Ray Charles twice late in his life, Leon Russell - to whom all my piano shrines are dedicated, The Stones, once - because I wanted to see Bobby Keys play - and the occasional classical pianist, although many of them still going around are not that good - Cristina Ortiz is one who remains beyond amazing). Frequently, too, they are people my kids want to see (especially my son, who has taken me to see Opeth, Dreamtheater, Steve Hackett, Joe Satriani, Martin Barre, Yes etc). In my son's case, those are performances that will centre around some ridiculously great guitarist whose music I mostly don't listen to (or, in the case of Yes, actively dislike). I enjoy those performances, even if I might not listen much to their studio recordings.

Paul is a very fine (and grossly underrated) bass player but his thing isn't really improvisation or technical display, so I think you can just listen to the recordings (only if you like them, of course - no KenH, it isn't compulsory).

I never went to see Joe Cocker, although Mad Dogs & Englishmen is my favourite live album (and always has been). I never went to see Eric Clapton play solo (though, yes, if I'd been in England when Cream reformed briefly, I would have gone to see them and I did buy the DVD of their Royal Albert Hall concert). Mostly, I think the older people are overtaken by the younger ones, which is as it should be.

I did see Steve Vai on Thursday night at the Palais. That's a whole different thing, in my opinion, because, even though his music is not really to my taste, he is an extraordinary talent on the guitar and I was just in awe of his technical skill and the inventiveness of his playing. He doesn't just roll out replicas of his albums on stage. Some of it is self-consciously a pi$$-take (as when he plays his triple-necked contraption) but that is amusing, too. Here's a little snippet somebody filmed from the show I saw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whgYHKCXJOA

[stui magpie]

^

That's some pretty damn good guitar work. What's with the cord to the amp? I thought most stopped using that 20 years ago.

[Pies4shaw]

^ My son gives the following explanation - Vai uses passive pick-ups and a large effects rack (a series of up to 5 effects at any one time) and a grounded lead is the best way to ensure there is no loss of signal or low level interference. The bass player used a wireless signal, as you’ll see - no effects rack, active pickups and a low-frequency signal in his case. I don’t understand most of those words (!!!) - but my lad is a professional hard rock and heavy metal guitarist, so I expect that’s the explanation.

He adds that George Thorogood experienced a loss of signal in his wireless setup when he visited recently. I think that was at the Forum, perhaps? I don’t know - somehow I never get taken to the gigs I really want to see.

[stui magpie]

^

Cheers, I thought as much (without pretending to understand the technical terms)

Same principle as choosing to use an Ethernet cable for your home PC rather than relying on WIFI. The advantage of the wireless is mobility but the cable gives a better result.

[Magpietothemax]

Now and Then (Beatles last song) now no.1 in the UK. This creates another record: the longest time ever in history between no. 1 in the UK for the Beatles (previous 1969, and now in 2023).
The greatest band of all time has created one final record.
No doubt this is the last one.
But they have established a continuum of a musical legacy that will continue to delight the generations.

[Magpietothemax]

No need to listen to John, Paul, George and Ringo sing it, then - the covers are already proliferating, eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oolqq932QvA

There should be enough of these to keep you going for the next 50 years or so.

Yep, so true. Pies4shaw
If you don't think the Beatles rate, then listen to a cover. It might be better
But more to the point, why are covers proliferating? Because the Beatles are just held in awe by generations, and because their melodies are an inspiration and a joie de vivre.
Sorry to those who think the Beatles don't rate. Sorry just for you that you can possibly think that.

[lazzadesilva]

The funniest comment I ever heard years ago from someone very silly was that the Bay City Rollers were the best band ever and that their music will live on much longer than the Beatles

[Pies4shaw]

^ Yeah, nah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDDGlkclliw

And the same concept, as put about by the other lads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH6i9JAdJrQ

[think positive]

i prefer the Bay City Rollers to the beatles and any side kicks anyday, i fricken cannot stand the sounds of the beatles!

only 2 songs, something about a long and winded road and Imagine, one of my all time favourite songs, the rest, ugh, double triple ugh!

[stui magpie]

^

Imagine was a John Lennon song, post Beatles.

Long and winding road.......something I'd turn the radio off to if it came on. Sorry.

[lazzadesilva]

i prefer the Bay City Rollers to the beatles and any side kicks anyday, i fricken cannot stand the sounds of the beatles,!

Never before have I used this term with more surprise - “To each their own”

[David]

I’m generally in the "Beatles are overrated" camp and find the cultural mystique surrounding them vaguely irritating, but even I can’t deny they had some great (and legitimately groundbreaking) tracks in amongst all the fine but inessential radio-friendly hits and barely listenable late '60s experimental stuff. If I only got to make a few mixtapes beforehand, I reckon I’d be taking "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "A Day in the Life" to a desert island with me for sure.

[Pies4shaw]

^ I think the thing about the Beatles that generally gives people who don't like them much the irrits is that they were so good, so wide-ranging and so perfect at everything they did that all that has happened in popular music since 1962 exists in their shadow. Thus, the only song written in the 20th century that may be more significant in the history of popular music than the Beatles' best, say, 50 songs is "Summertime". Their impact on the development of music is about the same as Mozart's was. They're probably less "important" than Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Schoenberg and Ligeti - but none of those people were writing for the radio.

There's some music I "prefer" to theirs - but I'm not silly enough to pretend that the stuff I like is "better" - because, despite my reasonably broad tastes in music (the only thing I can't really cope with is country and western music), what I like just objectively isn't "better" than the Beatles. Nor is anything else recorded since 1960 "better" than the Beatles, no matter how much some people wish it were.

[lazzadesilva]

Comparison always leads to the “my dick is bigger than yours” syndrome. I tend to listen to the bands or music I like and leave others to do the same. My two twenty something kids listen to some terrible very loud noises and screams they call music, probably exactly what my parents thought when I was in my twenties. Opinions can differ and I do find some opinions strange and weird, ones which I strongly disagree with. But to each their own.