I like Hadron Orchestra:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eA69dB46wA
When people who don’t know the genre think EDM they instantly jump to something like Skrillex and big party anthems.
What they are forgetting is that at the time, other than some electroindustrial, no one had ever done anything like that, either. Yes, 20 years later a lot of bad cookie cutter party anthem EDM has come out; so what? Tell me your favorite genre and I will embarrass it too 
I like to point people to this, because it’s accessible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGeap-qyoHQ
Deadmau5 performed by the CMG Music Recording Orchestra. Only tangentially EDM; Deadmau5 is more solid prog house. But still.
Actually the version of Strobe the orchestra did might be my favorite version.
1 Like
Thank goodness I am a science teacher… was worried there for a sec… 
8 Likes
I’m a scientist who could quite possibly be mentally ill, so I am all set too.
8 Likes
Former scientist, never taught, possibly insane, but don’t like jazz so I think I’m good 
6 Likes
Jazz is a funny story for me.
Most of my life, never listened to it (like most ‘sane’ people).
When I started playing trumpet (before sax) in earnest, I was focused on New Orleans style music (with is Traditional Jazz, but had no idea). My instructor eased me into Miles Davis, and then the flood gates opened up. That said, I like about 0.01% of all Jazz out there, even less for anything made after the 60s. Even with Coltrane there is a small subset of his stuff I love, the rest is like noise to me, but man oh man is that subset good.
Pretty much all jazz I listen to is on my wall behind and next to me.
My take has always been…
There are two things inherently wrong with Jazz:
- There are so many sub-genres no one knows what Jazz actually is
- Kenny G
3 Likes
Arguably, if it wasn’t for the musical and technical musical knowledge and ability(none of which the 4 members of the Beatles had anything to speak of. By their own confessions, their musical abilities were “primitive”), as well as his direction and arrangements, it’s highly unlikely that the Beatles would have got much further than the Cavern.
Paul McCartney made attempts to have lessons and to learn theory, but he admitted that he found it all too difficult. Because the Beatles achieved popularity due to schoolkids, as is the case with the usual boy bands, those in the era have grown up and give them greater esteem than they deserve. If a band is respected they will be seen as being far more talented than they really are.
Are most of those who claim that the Beatles are musical geniuses in such a position and with the insight, knowledge, and objectivity to be able to do so? Or are they heavily or completely influenced by the Beatles’ image and are merely going by what other people say so as to seem knowledgeable and not out of step with others?
All the respect given to the Beatles should really be attributed to George Martin, and at that time and place he could have taken any other mediocre wannabe music big timers and done the same. The success of the 4 Beatles was largely a matter of luck of being in the right time at the right place rather than any musical greatness.
For the OP. I think theory does matter, but gear does not. A great player can sound great using practically anything.
1 Like
That’s a bold statement @HowLowCanYouGet . I’m no Beatles fanboy, however it could be argued that they’ve produced some good work.
It’s a strange culture that Britain is almost proud of, in that they love to grumble and complain about things and cut people down. I can say this confidently as an Ex Pat Brit.
Regardless of whether you like The Beatles or not, why would you attempt to score any points by claiming their success is mainly luck.
Let me know when your album is coming out.
1 Like
Maybe so, but they still had a massive influence on pop music from the mid sixties onwards. Everybody knows a Beatles song or two, and John Lennon and Paul McCartney went on to have pretty successful solo careers. Even if they were coached by George Martin (and my Mum says they were), they did come up with song ideas and were willing to try experimental production techniques on their albums.
The fact is that they had things to say, and these things resonated with the record buying public, even until now. I’m no fanboy but you have to admit they produced well respected works of art…
2 Likes
I respectfully disagree here. All 4 went on to have continued careers with or without George Martin. For sure he was amazing not only at arranging, but also at pulling the talent these 4 had out. Sure, their popularity gave them a ‘pass’ in the beginning, but if popularity and George Martin were all it was, then they would have fizzled at some point. Many many many great bands have great producers behind them pulling it out or putting it together. No shame in that.
Paul and John are arguably the greatest songwriters of all time, not by a critical ear judgement, but by the population of the globe for the past 50+ eyars. Even George Martin couldn’t put lipstick on a pig to start with.
On top of that, they pushed themselves, not to learn theory, but to experiment, to try new things, to innovate. They had ideas too, all the ‘good ideas’ weren’t George Martin’s.
You don’t have to like the Beatles to give them their due. You don’t have to like Madonna to give her hers. You don’t have to like the Stones to give them theirs (I don’t care for them at all but appreciate what they are and what they have done), the list goes on.
But to cut them down to “George Martin and luck” - I disagree with that one, again respectfully.
3 Likes
I’m with you there. I’ve tried, Lord knows I’ve tried, but I simply can’t get into it. My brother is a big jazz man but I think he sees it as kind of an academic exercise with interesting time signatures (he’s a drummer). Me- I just find a lot of jazz very self indulgent and it doesn’t fit in with anything I do (gym, work, riding etc.)
Hah. yep 
1 Like
No, I said their success was due to George Martin, and that was deserved. I didn’t say their work under the label of The Beatles was bad. With the 4 members of the Beatles, it was mostly down to luck of being in the right time and the right place. Without George Martin, they probably wouldn’t have got much further than places like the Cavern.
It should be remembered that almost all, if not all, of their success and popularity was not amongst music lovers or those of a critical ear, but schoolkids.
Is that not largely down to fame? Everyone knows an Abba or Britney Spears song too, but it says nothing about how good or bad they are.
Were WIngs “successful”? If the others had any success, it’s the first I’ve heard of them. I think we need to distance talent away from fame because they’re not related. The latter is almost entirely about marketing.
John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo faded away into obsurity when the Beatles broke up? hmmmm.
Six Grammy Awards and 14 million records - nah - flash in the pan.
@HowLowCanYouGet you’re neither right or wrong about music. It’s your opinion. However to shit talk The Beatles musical achievements, just seem unnecessarily petty. There’s lots of music I don’t like. But I respect people for making it.
It’s super easy to criticize, much harder to actually do.
When you’ve finished your musical equivalent of ‘The Long and Winding Road’ put it up on Soundcloud so I can have a listen. 
Meanwhile here’s my favourite Beatles song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9XNoU3tHqU
2 Likes
Harrison’s All Things Must Pass gives witness to their underlying talent. Brilliant record. Imagine is a near perfect song, and I’m not a Beatles fan.
As far as the luck thing, you can say that about practically every band. For every Doobie Brothers there’s a Clover. Even Springsteen tells tales of better bands he played with that did not manage to get discovered.
You have to have enough talent and persistence to hang on until something good happens. And luck doesn’t really exist. As Robert Heinlein said “there is no such thing as luck, there is only adequate or inadequate preparedness to cope with a statistical universe.”
2 Likes
Well I’ve obviously ruffled a few feathers with people taking things personally and I apologise, but I stand by what I say. I think it’s important to provide balance and alternative perspectives so as not to be too carried away by judging by fame and popularity.
There are many many people who are surprised that none of the Beatles knew any music theory or that Elvis Presley has no legitimate songwriting credits to his name or that Justin Bieber is not a musical god. They just wrongly think I or the person saying that is just trying to bad mouth them or something and that what we say is untrue - Elvis Presley really was a fantastic songwriter(look at how popular he became for proof!) and the Beatles knew music theory like the back of their hand(“well, everyone knows that. Just look at how many hits they had. You must be crazy to think otherwise”), and don’t let any clueless person tell you otherwise. Sorry I spoke.
2 Likes
I don’t think it’s fair to say nobody knows what jazz is, I think it’s pretty clear or at least as clear as any other music genre…one could easily say the same about rock, metal and country. The biggest thing that usually defines “real” jazz is improvisation and the rest you can classify under “you know it when you hear it”. Almost all modern American music has been influenced by jazz.
Give me some clown core any day! https://youtu.be/sR_rPd_ufK4
Kenny G is the Nickelback of Jazz. There are lots of sub-genres of “jazz” and I refuse to recognize that smooth jazz is one of them I does suggest that there should be something like rough jazz though?
1 Like
I agree with you that jazz is about improvisation and that smooth jazz is not jazz. There are some modern jazz that doesn’t use improv but they insist is jazz nevertheless, so what is jazz to them then? IMO improvisation is what defines the core of what jazz is about.
Smooth jazz has no improv and is often referred to as elevator music, and which gives jazz a bad name to some people. It’s more closely related to RnB. People hear a horn and instinctively think that’s it’s jazz. To me, a lot of smooth jazz that I hear has no life, passion, or energy, but is pleasant listening.
Some people believe that that jazz is “lots of notes going nowhere”.
1 Like
Dude, it was a joke…
I dislike Kenny G but fact is he is the single biggest selling jazz artist of all time.
I actually liked him a lot in the Jeff Lorber Fusion prior to his solo gig.
Ok, I’d like to move on from this discussion re The Beatles being just lucky. The thing I love about this forum is that no matter your musical ability / experience (I’ve only been playing for a year); It’s generally a positive, upbeat and encouraging place. I deal with enough assholes in work / the rest of my life. So it’s nice to not have to listen to people moaning about stuff on here.
I don’t care that The Beatles didn’t know music theory. They did write / make some interesting stuff however.
One of my favourite channels on YouTube is when Rick Beato breaks down a song to it’s constituent parts and explains the theory / working of it. It doesn’t diminish the song for me, it just makes me appreciate it even more.
In these challenging times, let’s try and be a bit more positive eh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr0bUxuzYAM
3 Likes