I won't go on any more about the Beatles -- this is not the forum for that. But I had to say something about Painaporo's post, which just hit a nerve for me. I'm done now.

Painaporo obviously takes his love of music seriously and that's as it should be.
I think even the world's biggest Beatles fan would admit that not every Beatles song is brilliant, but without them we would never have had Crowded House!
Of course the Finn brothers would still have been the geniuses they are, but the direction would have been somewhat different I'm sure.
DNA though ? Don't think so.

It's OK adidasman, I didn't expect my opinion to be popular. As far as "Black & White Boy" goes, I dare say it has more going on musically and lyrically than "Nowhere Man".

"Skin Feeling" may be akin to "The Word" but SF delivers it's message with a bit more nuance and craft.

As for Not The Girl's point that Crowded House sound like they do because of The Beatles, I won't try and argue that. However, just because they did something first doesn't mean that they did it best. And, I'm willing to bet that there's a lesser known musician or two who The Beatles were influenced by, yet no one seems to be preaching their names!

The Beatles always talked about their influences; Little Richard, Buddy Holly, the Everly Brothers, Elvis, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Jerry Lee Lewis, most of the '50s rockers. No one would suggest that the Beatles' music sprung from nowhere. But your comments are just incendiary, it seems to me, the kind of thing people say when they feel their faves are being slighted because they're constantly compared unfavorably to another, more popular group. I had a girlfriend who raged at me for suggesting that a bit on an Elvis Costello album was Beatles-influenced; the part that killed me was that, had Elvis been there, he would have surely confessed to the "crime" I had accused him of. But she saw my comment as being negative toward Elvis, which it most certainly wasn't. Anyway, if you think "Black and White Boy" is in any way superior to "Nowhere Man", musically or lyrically or otherwise, I'm not sure what else I can say. You're hopeless.

As for the CH box, my guess is that, before they reformed, it seemed a nice coda for the band. Now, with them soldiering on, my guess is that Neil feels they really don't need to do the boxed set at this juncture; they don't really have that much material, considering there are only five albums and a batch of unreleased tracks to choose from, and most of that is already out in the world. He seems the type who would rather look ahead than backward. And the coffee table art book is only economically viable if you have a huge fan base who'll snap up anything you put out, which CH doesn't have. It's a pity, because it'd be lovely to have all the stuff properly remastered and all that - and I can tell you, the difference between the old and new Beatles CDs is staggering, though I doubt the CH stuff would be as noticeably improved - but I'd rather have a new CD as opposed to a fancy boxed set any day.

There's nothing wrong with saying Crowded House was influenced by The Beatles. I wholeheartedly agree. But, IMHO, influenced by does not equal less than.

You can definitely be influenced by someone else's work while simultaneously surpassing it. For me, this is the case with CH and the Bealtes. For the rest of the world it is not so. I guess I inhabit a different (and lonelier) sphere. Nevertheless, if there were ever a place in the world where I could declare that Crowded House's music was greater than all others then this would have to be that place.

Holy cow.

I know music is a very personal thing, but even I, who have definitely had my fill of the Beatles, have to say that Rubber Soul is my favorite overall Beatles album.

Wow....

I'm starting to think, Painaporo, that you like to provoke reaction in people. How can you make sweeping statements like the ones you made in your post above about an album you've only heard for the very first time this week? ("stupid lyrics" "I can understand how the masses choose something like Rubber Soul") It's hard for me to put myself in your position, having known the songs on this album since before I can remember. But at this point in time, when I've really had my fill of the Beatles, maybe forever, if I did decide to play a Beatles album, Rubber Soul is the one I would choose. In my opinion, it is consistently wonderful...moreso than any other Beatles album.

Give it time. I think time may change some of those sweeping statements.

Painaporo...

Together Alone is a fantastic album but one I personally always feel is over-rated by the fans. The fact, and it is fact, that this album has no traction outside of the fan club. Meaning that if you're not a CH fan to begin with, it's highly unlikely you are going to treasure this album. Another fact, it barely gets a mention (if it actually does) in the best albums ever made lists variously compiled over the last 15 years - and yet Woodface is so it is not a case of critics/public (depending on who compiled the list) forgetting about the band.

However Rubber Soul always does and possibly always will be.

So for you to rubbish an influential album shows complete ignorance. All you need is ears. Personally I'm sick to death of attention seekers like you and their rubbish anti-Beatle diatribes. You do not have to be a fan at all and yes, you are allowed your opinion. Because this is my opinion:- Talk about Crowded House on this forum and leave The Beatles, of whom you know little about, out of the equation. If you cannot comprehend their influence, especially on anything to do with Enz, CH et al..., or why the Beatles are that damn important and good then how the hell can you comprehend what makes Neil Finn a brilliant songwriter?

Okay, that's my say on the matter.

BTW, if we can get the same guys who remastered the Beatle albums to remaster the Crowded House albums then I'll be first in line to buy the collection. I may be listening to Rubber Soul on my mp3 player while waiting for the store to open.

quote:

Originally posted by Paināporo:
"Skin Feeling" may be akin to "The Word" but SF delivers it's message with a bit more nuance and craft.

Whoah, Painaporo. I think I disagree with every word in this claim (except the ones in quotation marks). Heck, I even disagree with the apostrophe in your "it's"!

I'd wager Neil Finn would give his metaphorical Left Hand to have written "The Word."

Ok, I know many of you love the Beatles but not everybody does. There are plenty of people who could care less about the fab four and I just happen to be one of them. But to call me an ignorant attention seeker with rubbish opinions is probably taking it a bit far. I would be offended if I hadn't been around this forum for so many years.

So I think Together Alone is better than Rubber Soul, big deal! I don't see why The Beatles are so sacred when we go around criticizing just about every other band (including Crowded House) on this forum all the time.

All I did was listen to the album, which I'm pretty sure is the only experience I need to have an informed opinion about what I like and what I don't. You guys are gonna hate this but I listened to the first 7 tracks of The White Album on the way home from work today and I didn't care for it either. I guess I'll never be one of you but try to remember that I'm still human, even if I don't like the Beatles.

Well, keep in mind Painaporo, the Beatles are kind of like the Shakespeare/Beethoven/Picassos of popular music. You don't have to like them, but that said, you have to wonder why everyone else considers them astonishing geniuses. At some point I think an artist's achievements can be beyond reproach. There will always be critics, but try going to a symphony hall and trash-talking Beethoven's 9th symphony. Or tell a bunch of art enthusiasts that Picasso is totally overrated. You'll get a similar reaction.

And I honestly believe, that in 200 years people will still listen to the Beatles with awe, the same way people listen to great composers or admire great painters today.

There are some artists, like Neil Young or Bruce Springsteen, who I just can't get into, though many consider them among the greatest. I tend to think that there probably is something legitimately great about them, but for whatever reason, I'm not meant to connect with it (yet). I think that's a much better attitude all-around than saying "What is everyone thinking? They're just not very good!"

One other thing. I think learning a little about them, and the context of when they made their music, can go along way (again just as with someone like Beethoven).

They were pioneers in several ways. Along with the Beach Boys, they pioneered the way records are made. Not to get too geeky, but during those days, bands were content to record using only four tracks. The Beatles needed more - this was simply not enough for them to fulfill the vision they had for their music. They worked with the engineers there, rewiring stuff and doing crazy things to Abbey Road Studios, simply so they could use more tracks and create more layers in their music. They did this at a time when nobody else had even thought of it, or considered it important enough to try. And the result was dense, layered songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" from Revolver. This was revolutionary.

They did other things like plugging a guitar directly into the mixing desk, to get the scorching electric guitar solo on "Taxman." They recorded John's voice through a warbly Hammond organ speaker. Nobody could play the piano solo in "In My Life" up to speed, so they recorded it at half speed and an octave lower, then sped it up and inserted it in the song. They were among the first to use famous electronic keyboards, like the Mellotron (flutes at start of "Strawberry Fields") or the Moog ("Here Comes the Sun"), while others thought synthesizers were a silly novelty that would never catch on.

George incorporated Indian tabla and drones into his songs. They used a *sitar* in a pop song ("Norwegian Wood") and a *string quartet* in another ("Eleanor Rigby") - this was crazy, thrilling stuff back then that nobody had ever done before.

Apart from being technical pioneers, there's the consistent quality of their songwriting. John, Paul and George were all excellent singers and songwriters, and had very fruitful solo careers (no other band has produced *3* great solo artists, that I know of). Paul's melodic bass playing is still hugely influential today (on people like Nick Seymour, for example), as is George's guitar playing.

They broke all the rules and made new ones, and set an entirely new standard for popular music, more so than any other band. They earned the respect of musicians of EVERY genre - people as diverse as John Coltrane and Leonard Bernstein found them amazing. They were a phenomenon the likes of which the world will probably never see again.

My parents were teenagers when all this was happening, and it's fun to hear them talk about the Beatles. They talk about how people scarcely knew what to make of "Eleanor Rigby" when it came on the radio - it was just so different, daring and brilliant people could hardly believe it. They would just sit and gaze at the radio, as if they were watching an alien spacecraft or something.

(Okay, some of what's to come overlaps with slowpogo's comments, which were posted while I was writing, but I'm going to go ahead and post anyway):

There are a couple of obvious problems with comparing the Beatles and Crowded House. One is the background of pop/rock from which each band emerged. The Beatles emerged at a time when the top 40 was dominated by musically and lyrically simple pap. There were stirrings elsewhere in the international music scene (Dylan, for example), but really the pop music of the time (at least the non-Broadway-showtune variety) was very basic. So the Beatles started basic. And they did basic very, very well for awhile, but remained fairly basic. And then they grew--and the growth was remarkable (A Day in the Life, released in 1967, could not have been written by the Beatles, or frankly by anyone, in 1964--it would have been unimaginable). But they were still somewhat constrained by their starting point. By the time Crowded House came along, the possibilities of pop music had expanded dramatically. This doesn’t mean one has to prefer the Beatles to Crowded House. It’s possible to prefer Beethoven to Mozart--Beethoven’s music in his mature years was more structurally and harmonically complex and more dramatic than Mozart’s best--while still acknowledging Mozart’s genius and acknowledging that Beethoven’s music is almost inconceivable without Mozart. But respect should be paid.

The other difficulty is one of age. When the Beatles hit #2 on the UK charts with Please Please Me, they were so young--George Harrison was still a teenager, Paul was 21, and Ringo and John were all of 22. Crowded House, by contrast, released its first album when Neil Finn was a musically mature 28. By the time Paul McCartney was 28, the Beatles had split up. And what was Neil writing when he was 21?

I got you
That’s all I want
I won’t forget
That’s a whole lot
I don’t go out
Now that you’re in
Sometimes we shout
But that’s no problem

No disrespect to Neil, but those lyrics aren’t terribly impressive. By the time the Beatles finished their collective work, all three of the band’s principal songwriters (sorry, Ringo) had grown significantly. I do think that Neil ultimately was and is a better lyricist than any of the Beatles. But that’s largely because he kept growing as a songwriter past his late twenties, into his thirties and forties (and now fifties). Sadly, none of the Beatles managed that on their own (John’s opportunities were cut short, of course, and I have a theory that the success of Hey Jude led ultimately to Paul McCartney’s undoing as a songwriter, but this post is already too long, so I won’t elaborate).

Is it possible to prefer Crowded House to the Beatles? Of course. Is it possible to hear What You’re Doing, never having been immersed in Beatlemania (in its original or subsequent forms) and cringe at the thought that this band could be considered geniuses? Of course. Is it possible to dislike the Beatles? It’s hard for me to fathom, but of course it’s possible. But no one should dismiss them.

It's not a lack of historic appreciation or an understanding of recording technology that keeps me from liking the beatles. In fact, I've tried to get into them on and off for probably the last 20 years. My good friend Dave (who made the Penny Lane literal music video) is probably the biggest Beatles fan I'll ever meet (and we've written and recorded a lot of songs together ... even used to cover "Eight Days a Week" at shows). My undergraduate degree is in Music Business so I've taken classes in recording technology, music comp., and even the history of rock n roll. I totally appreciate that the Beatles did mind-blowing things for their time. I don't deny that they had a huge influence on all things Finn. All of these facts, however, still don't make their music do anything for me when I listen to it.

I used to think that it was just the terrible quality of the old Beatles CDs. So, when the remasters came out, I decided to give them a listen. I agree that they sound way better than the old CDs but the music still doesn't capture my attention. I imagine it's just like listening to any music that you might not like, only when I express my opinion people here go ballistic.

I love that "Four Seasons in One Day" and "Not the Girl you Think You Are" have these amazing Beatlesque overtones but I've searched the beatle catalog for their original counterparts only to come up empty handed. I hear the similarities in the chords and harmonies, but there's an impressionistic way of writing that Neil Finn has that the Beatles never seem to have captured. Perhaps, as Jeffcoop pointed out, they just hadn't matured as songwriters.

I don't dismiss the beatles, but it's true that by today's singer/songwriter standards I don't see the appeal of most beatles songs. I guess I'd rather hear something a bit more modern in my pop music (though I do spend a lot of time listening to classical music as well).

So, lets just drop all the theories about what I'm doing wrong or how I'll eventually find my way, and just accept the fact that there is a Crowded House fan who just doesn't care for the Beatles.