| | | |
.jpg)
Bob Elliott
|
9/16/2009 1:03:20 AM
Something Obvious About the Beatles That Sets Them Apart From Most Everyone...
Two lead singer writers of equal talent used equally...
Not to mention a third guy that was half bad and got a lot better by the end
and a fourth guy they could use for vocals for even more breaking it up.
I don't think we often realize how big of an effect this had. If you listen to a band with one dominating singer writer (most every band), after awhile, no matter how good, you've heard it, okay? I mean a change up would be good, but there isn't any.
I've always been surprised that there have not been numerous, even a majority of bands with a partnership like that. I always wanted to be in a band like that and tried to create that with friends. I never wanted to dominate a band, I wanted to be part of a team.
Tom and I were pretty compatible, but he moves a thousand miles every other year or so. Same story with everybody. I just live in the wrong place.
|
|
Tom O'Brien
|
9/16/2009 2:02:04 AM
I'm kind of like the knight on a chess board. It's sometimes hard to guess where I'll end up in a few moves. Could be somewhere in California again if the powers that be permit. You live in the perfect place. It's everybody else who has got it wrong.
|
|
|
9/16/2009 2:28:56 AM
The effect is even more profound if the 2 singers are a guy and a girl. :)
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
9/16/2009 4:36:34 AM
I totally agree Bob!
I think the reason there are not more is the problem of Ego's...If there is more then one writer and lead singer tensions develop when each wants to do their own material and drive the direction of the band.
By the time of the White Album, The Beatles were in that scenario.... It is mainly an Album with three separate bands..... The Beatles were not present alot of the time on each others songs.
Pink Floyd began to splinter when Waters came into his own...Gilmore is a great singer with a Great voice, Waters is not a great Singer but he is unique. By the end, they could not stand each other.
I was in a Band with two other writers and Singers...It did not work....Damn Ego's!
I was content with three songs per Show, The others wanted it all. We Broke up....The Bastids!!!
|
|
Noah Spaceship
|
9/16/2009 9:36:28 AM
I see it as the perfect storm of creativity.
A fun thought I like to play with is,.. did john and paul make the band, or did being in that band make them the songwriters they became?
Try to consider the amount of worldwide confidence and responsibility placed on those (kids) musicians camped out in abbey road,..
maybe some psychedelics,.. a legendary producer (whom i could easily put into the same category as the band) don't get me wrong, they started out strong with great hits,.. but those boys evolved over the course of their recording career.
I don't come up with any 3,4,..or 5 piece bands (pop/rock) that really did what the beatles did. We hear bits of hype refering to 'the next beatles' (fuckheadoasisscumdouches) but not ever even come close really,.. right?
you can name plenty of bands that have dueling songwriters and great ones, but the beatle magic can't be duplicated.
|
|
Hop On Pop
|
9/16/2009 1:09:50 PM
There are many other bands with co-leaders that weren't The Beatles.
Although, I do think there is a validity to your argument, as multiple lead singers always DOES lend some interest. Some other examples:
Fleetwood Mac (Lindsay, Stevie, and Christine)
Husker Du (Bob and Grant)
Uncle Tupelo (Jeff and Jay)
And Guided By Voices got a lot less interesting once Toby left the band, and Bob was the sole leader, as great a songwriter as he is.
Also, as far as personal experience, I'm with you, Bob. I always enjoyed being part of a BAND, as opposed to being the band. I like the commeradery. And yes, I even enjoyed the competition of trying to outdo the songs brought in by my fellow bandmates. It made me a better songwriter.
And, coming up with my own, creative parts to my bandmates' songs -- made me a better, more sympathetic guitar player. Plus, it's fun sometimes to kick back and just play.
|
|
Fyvwunsyx
|
9/16/2009 3:22:30 PM
add the Eagles to that list Todd.....
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
9/16/2009 6:21:24 PM
True there are other bands, however overall they are the minority when all bands are taken into account.
Of the new bands just listed, we all know the contention within the Eagles and how they broke up. They only got back together when Hell froze over for the Ca$h.
Christine McVie has quit Fleetwood Mac, and I get the sense she always wanted more say in the direcction of the band and never was very happy...
|
|
Tom O'Brien
|
9/16/2009 7:52:20 PM
One other thing that the Beatles had going for them was that they were friends first. If friendship is solid, it comes out in the music. Even when they were bickering, they had a history of knowing each other intimately, and that's what makes for a great partnership.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
9/16/2009 8:06:11 PM
---- Updated 9/16/2009 8:08:18 PM
True Tom, but it also introduces the Love/Hate factor....and many arguements ensue like you are married , without the benefit of Make-up Sex :)
Look at the bands going on for along time....One Singer
The Stones, Aerosmith, U2.........
When the "One" singer is the major creative force they usually don't stay together, and the Lead Singer moves on to a solo career...
Genesis- Peter Gabriel
The Police - Sting (They finally reunited for Ca$h, but the relationship has always been contentious)
Matchbox 20 - Rob Thomas
The Jackson Five - Michael Jackson
I am sure there are more...
It's not an absolute, but it is an interesting concept.
|
|
| |
©2015-16 IndieMusicPeople.com All Rights
Reserved
| |