JohnB
10/20/2011 8:19:00 AM
On Oct 19, 11:43 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 3:31 pm, JohnB <johnbo...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 7:44 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:> Keyboards?... some one like Rick Wright, John Paul Jones or Rick
> > > Wakeman or Keith Emerson
>
> > > Flute?... Ray Thomas, Ian Anderson or Peter Gabriel could have fit in?
>
> > > Saxophone? Nik Turner or David Jackson or Ian McDonald or Mel Collins
>
> > They were the Beatles, they could have anyone they wanted. Beatles
> > records had piano, organ, sax, horns, harp, ful orchestras, etc.. They
> > didn't *need* a fifth Beatle. They just hired what they needed. The
> > point is that any other character would have had to fit into the
> > spirit of the band and that would have been far more important than
> > any particular instrument.
>
> Well since both Harrison and Starr didnt write many songs, may be they
> didn't need a 3rd Beatle? After all Lennon/McCartney could play it
> all. You missed my point. I meant having another member who could
> play live. Majority of Beatles songs were unplayable live because of
> all the studio manipulations. No wonder they "stopped" touring.
>
The major reason they stopped touring was because the PA systems
available back then couldn't provide the power needed to overcome the
screaming from the fans. They couldn't hear each other, nevermind that
the audience could barely hear.
Oh, and I'd say the majority of the Beatles songs could be played live
quite easily, though they may have needed extra musicians - but loads
of bands do that these days. Even the Bootleg Beatles have performed
with a string quartet and horns section.
Oh, and though Harrison and Starr didn't contribute much in terms of
composition (though George could have later on), they still
contributed to the Beatles sound and image. Personality counts for
something you know.
>
>
> > > Or could they have a second guitarist? the one who could actually play
> > > leads? ;-)
>
> > You play guitar, do you?
>
> I play the keyboards... my fingers are not well adapted to play guitar
> or bass.
>
> >You can run off the lead from Till There Was
> > You or Can't Buy Me Love or Something or The End in your sleep? No, I
> > think not.
> > Actually - they already had three guitarists and they could all play
> > rhythm, lead or bass.
>
> Yeah they did. But none of them was a virtuoso lead guitarist by any
> means.... Could the Beatles have survived the guitar solo dominated
> 70s?
The 70s were dominated by guitar solos? Really? So tell me, who was
the lead guitarist in Abba or the Bee Gees or ELO or with David Bowie
or Elton John or any of the successful disco artists or any of the
major punk bands? Or do you not regard these as major 70s acts?