Music Banter - View Single Post - The Official David Bowie Thread
View Single Post
Old 08-16-2008, 12:27 PM   #223 (permalink)
Rainard Jalen
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
Richard Jalen is the same guy who thinks The Beatles only appeared to be good musicians because of George Martin.
I don't think they even appeared to be "good musicians". The musicianship itself, as you pointed out elsewhere, was largely simple and unpretentious (e.g. George's solos). What I attribute to George Martin is much of the clever instrumental arrangements, interplay, counterpoint, polyphony and whatnot that appeared in the band's better output such as on Revolver. It is a fact that none of them were extremely talented instrumentalists (though Paul was indeed very good). Note when I say "talented", I'm comparing that to the standards of the rock music that came out of the era when technical proficiency was starting to become the thing, i.e. the later 60s (the Yardbirds had Beck, Clapton and Page as an example) and the 1970s. I never meant that comment to slate the Beatles. It's just a fact that they had their origins in the earlier tradition of late 50s/early 60s rock'n'roll where high technical proficiency on instruments was not important. Instrumental virtuosity was traditionally important in Jazz, not in early Rock music. The fact that the Beatles were not virtuosi on their respective instruments merely reflects that they didn't have their origins in the era where being able to do almost inhuman things with guitars became the fashion of popular music. That is all, really. If somebody feels the need to lie to themselves and insist that the Beatles were in fact virtuosi, then fine, so be it. If one is so insecure in liking the Beatles that they feel they need to justify it to themselves by believing things about them that are simply untrue, then great. Though they should keep it to themselves. Personally I can love the Beatles for the genius of their songwriting and melodies, and leave the virtuosity for the hard, prog and jazz rock that was to come later on.

Quote:
I wouldn't take him too seriously. And I also find that what he usually thinks is a popular opinion really isn't.
Any examples aside from what you are alleging about Young Americans?

Young Americans did as a matter of fact receive significantly less positive responses from music journalists than did Hunky Dory, Alladin Sane and Ziggy Stardust.

As for Bowie fans, well, I've spoken to at least a few who were not keen on Young Americans among his 70s work (and Diamond Dogs). The jury's out on what the bigger Bowie fans here think.

Last edited by Rainard Jalen; 08-16-2008 at 12:33 PM.
Rainard Jalen is offline   Reply With Quote