This post comes hot on the heels of watching It Might Get Loud. An 'OK' film rather than a great one, it’s chief effect was to make me realise what a great band Led Zeppelin were. So I dug out a load of Zep to listen to, the chief effect of which was to make me realise what a great band The Beatles were.
Back to the film.
Seeing Jack White make an electric guitar out of a few bits of wood and a coke bottle threw into sharper relief the Edge’s struggle to find the right setting for ‘Pride’ on a pedal board with more effects than the entire Abbey Road studio (circa 1970) and more processing power than Mission Control, Houston (circa 2010).
Right there I got an insight into why the Beatles were able to produce so much, so quickly, and so consistently whereas U2 (and most of their contemporaries) produce so little.
Don’t underestimate the power of limiting your choices.
When you have only 4 tracks, a few instruments, and some reverb you quickly exhaust all the possibilities and you are faced with doing yet another take or just saying ‘let’s move onto the next song.’ Even at their most technically advanced the Beatles had less to play with than I do on the garage band-equipped Mac I’m typing this post on.
I’m convinced that one of the (many) reasons for the Beatles greatness was that they wrote and recorded so many songs. The more you do something, the better you become. Duh!
But here's my point -
But here's my point -
The Beatles productivity was inversely proportionate to the number of gadgets they had to dick around with. Spending 2 hours deciding how much decay to put on the guitar echo and 2 days soundchecking a drum kit might mean you take 2 years to record an album. And 2 years in the studio will often need 3 or 4 years on the road to recoup the advance.
Comparisons can be misleading, I know. Bono takes time out to save the world whereas The Beatles practically lived in the studio.
Nevertheless -
In 7 years...
The Beatles recorded over 12 albums worth of material.
In 7 years...
The Beatles recorded over 12 albums worth of material.
U2 recorded 5 albums. (And in the last 7 years they've only recorded 2).
I think there's a lesson to learn.
Do you need to limit your options?
Scratch that. Why don't you try limiting yourself, whether you think you need to or not?
Take a hard look at the following areas.
Time (both recording and mixing).
Number of tracks.
Places to record.
Number of people involved.
Instruments/gadgets/hardware used.
Related posts: Tom Morello on Limiting Yourself
Hugh MacLeod And Paul McGuinness On Limiting Yourself
Hugh MacLeod And Paul McGuinness On Limiting Yourself
I couldn't agree more.
ReplyDeleteI play guitar at church, and at one point had three pedals (Danelectro Grilled Cheese distortion, Ibanez SM7 overdrive, and Danelectro Fab Chorus). I pulled the GC off of my line about a month or so ago, cause I never used it.
I pulled the chorus pedal off my line cause it crapped out (and I don't really miss it).
Now the only pedal I have is the Ibanez OD, and I don't use it THAT much.
Heck, in my most recent "raw" recording, I spent more time on my drum sequencing than I did on recording my guitar and pseudo-bass (drum seq was done in Cakewalk Music Creator 5).
The Beatles were masters at churning songs. They knew the beauty of rawness. Just take a look at how many songs Elvis had from the 50s, and compare it to the 70s "jumpsuit" Elvis. Raw, pure rock and roll versus "pop" rock.
Good point Thunder
ReplyDeleteI've lost count at the number of times I've been drooling over some famous guitarists pedal board (I'm speaking figuratively not literally BTW!) only to find that the guts inside the pedal board are basically a bunch of cannibalised Boss pedals just like the ones I own.
I wouldn't put U2 in the same league as the Beatles. Bono should stick to politics!
ReplyDeleteI agree in terms of influence and innovation there is no one to come close to the Beatles, but as a yardstick 'biggest band in the world' at the moment I think they're a reasonable source of comparison. Anyone else you'd suggest instead?
ReplyDeleteDespite the bad taste that U2 leaves in my mouth, I thought that the filmmakers picked the perfect 3 guitarists. 3 different generations, 3 different guitar styles, and 3 different interpretations of rock and roll. Loved the film.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think that the Beatles and U2 can be compared on an output-based mentality as it pertains to recordings. Times were completely different, touring was different, recording processes and methods were different, record companies were different, executives at record companies were different, social norms were different, etc.
ReplyDeleteI think that's my point Scott - look how times have changed, by comparing the biggest band in the world then with arguably one of the biggest band in the world now.
DeleteIt's reasonable to say that advances in touring and technology should make it easier for a top band to be more prolific, yet we find the exact opposite. This post is an attempt to give one possible answer why.
ReplyDeleteRate Your Music Users Who Think Led Zeppelin Are Painfully Overrated
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/finulanu/users_who_think_led_zeppelin_are_painfully_overrated/
This Band Is Everything That Is WRONG With Music, a Rate Your Music Site moderator,Benimal only says Led Zeppelin is the worst.
https://rateyourmusic.com/board_message?message_id=4217944&board_id=1&show=20&start=20
I have found a lot of people on music forums who hate or don't like Led Zeppelin even some on heavy metal forums. And even some people who for some puzzling reason like their music,say they can't stand Robert Plant's awful screeching,screaming and whaling vocals.
The Boston Globe has an online article from March 2009,called I Confess I Don’t Like… written by all of their music critics and Luke O’Neil wrote that when people talk of classic bands they don’t like they’re really speaking in coded language.He said for example “I don’t like The Beatles.” is the same as saying,”I’m a liar” he said but when I say I don’t like Led Zeppelin there’s no subtext. He then says a lot of it has to do with Robert Plant’s fiendish helium-powered caterwauling. He says he tends to prefer bands with vocalists not police sirens in tight pants.He also said the lyrics which run the gamut unimaginative doggerel to too-imaginative fantasy goofs don’t help.
He then says sure they inspired a lot of great bands,but should we not then hold them accountable for the thousands of downright awful imitators they’ve inspired? Remember that whole hair metal thing in the 80’s? He says who do you think put the bustle in those dudes hedgerow? And grunge? He says that was basically goateed Led Zeppelin on Smack.
http://www.boston.com/ae/music/gallery/we_should?pg=10
Rock music critic John Mendelson never liked Led Zeppelin either.
Van Halen in the late 70's early-mid 80's with David Lee Roth sounded a million times better! So do the Who,The Rolling Stones,The Eagles,etc and The Beatles are a zillion times better.
In this Music discussion Most Underrated/Overrated Artists on the site Music Banter this guy Urban HatCmonger who even likes hard rock and heavy metal music said the first most overrated is Led Zeppelin and said in parenthesis, bombastic c*ck rock and nothing else. Even the cover of their first album has a phallic like huge zeppelin air craft on it that shows this, and a reviewer on Rate Your Music who gave this album only two stars,said and look at the horrible phallus cover.
http://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/24422-most-underrated-overrated-artists-8.html
Rock music critic John Mendelson who gave poor reviews to both of Led Zeppelin's first 2 albums in the late 1960's,was asked in this 2001 interview if he had changed his mind especially about Led Zeppelin 2,and he said certainly not,he hates it even more confidently than he did at the time,and he said,All that infernal screeching! All of that showing off on the guitar! He also said,And not a trace of the things he adores,melody,vocal harmony,expressive musicianship,and intelligence or at least wit.
ReplyDeleteAll of these qualities he described The Beatles had in abundance!
Here are his very good reviews of The Beatles Abbey Road and Let It Be albums in Rolling Stone Magazine,November 1969,and June 1970
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/let-it-be-19700611
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/abbey-road-19691115
He also became a big Beatles fan when he saw The Beatles first film,A Hard Day's night when it came out in 1964.
http://devorahostrov.blogspot.com/2017/01/john-mendelssohn-
unpublished-interview.html
John Mendelssohn: An Unpublished Interview - blogspot.com
In 1995 Rhino Records published I, Caramba, the autobiography of legendary rock critic, musician, and graphic artist John Mendelssohn.The book came nicely packaged with a CD compilation featuring solo demo material and several tracks from two of his bands - the Pits and Christopher Milk.
devorahostrov.blogspot.com
https://rockcritics.com/2013/04/12/from-the-archives-john-mendelssohn-2001/
ReplyDelete5 Reasons Why Led Zeppelin Is Totally Overrated by Reuben Levy
thezreview.com
To many, Led Zeppelin was the greatest rock band that ever was or will be. Far be it from me to rain on anyone’s parade, but it’s clearly not the case. The Beatles were the best band that ever was or will be period.
https://thezreview.com/2017/09/21/5-reasons-led-zeppelin-totally-overrated/
Wow thanks Randie!
ReplyDeleteI didn't want to give the impression that I hate Led Zep - far from it - I think there's much to admire. But if I had to list what's wrong with them Plant's contributions vocally and lyrically would be top of the list, right next to plagiarising.