Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
Do the Beatles get too much credit.. |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 910111213 28> |
| Author | |||||||||
russellk 
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: February 28 2005 Location: New Zealand Status: Offline Points: 782 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: April 30 2011 at 17:20 |
||||||||
|
^BW, you take my breath away, you really do. Comparing marketing strategies simply shows that marketing people still know how to make money. It says nothing about what is being marketed. I'll allow maybe 18 months, two years tops at the beginning of their recorded career when the Beatles might be considered by a harsh critic not as much more than a 'boy band', but after that, as they took over control of their musical destinies, they became THE game-changers in the world of popular music. They were never my favourite band - I often liked the covers of their songs better than the originals - but the Beatles were the spear-tip of a change that gave integrity, depth and power to the rather shallow world of pop. Factories like the Brill building and Tin Pan Alley began to lose their grip on kids' minds as the Beatles stretched our imaginations. I'm not sure I've heard an even remotely convincing argument to counter this.
Edited by russellk - April 30 2011 at 17:21 |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator 
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 30 2011 at 17:18 |
||||||||
 I'm out.
|
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group 
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 30 2011 at 14:21 |
||||||||
|
Earlier in this topic, I compared the Beatles to a modern-day boy band/singer. While the Beatles were certainly more innovative in the studio, and wrote all of their own songs on later albums (unlike many boy bands of today), the methods in which they have each been marketed are actually quite eerily similar. Here is a cover from 1965 out of a Beatles fan magazine, contrasted with a Justin Bieber cover from 2010. Even the hairstyles are practically the same:
  (For some reason, the above Beatles cover photo keeps getting removed from my post. Here is a link for it: http://www.mybeatles.net/imagesmedia/star_time.jpg. I originally discovered this image in the book, How The Beatles Destroyed Rock & Roll by Elijah Wald, which I am finding to be an interesting and informative alternative view of rock history. Despite its title, it does not specifically set out to slander the Beatles. It takes a broader view of rock music as a whole). Edited by Barking Weasel - April 30 2011 at 17:54 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 30 2011 at 13:30 |
||||||||
No, that was purely random. In the course of browsing info for this thread I happened upon several testimonials like that, this one was just the most recent in my browser history and seemed adequate as a response to your Zappa video. I don't believe I am an apologist, I'm not defending The Beatles, that it appears as I am is a natural consequence of answering some of your comments which I happen to find inaccurate or simply wrong. I am not a Beatles fan, just like Strummer I got over that when I was 10 or 11 - I own 2 Beatles albums and 1 EP, and one of those albums I don't like a great deal, but I do recognise its importance in the development of modern music as we know it. Whether music would have developed with or without it is impossible to answer, the reality is the album existed and music changed.
Your point is specious at best, futile misdirection at worse. Collating lists of artists influenced or not influenced by The Beatles isn't a way of proving any point of value, no one is claiming that they are liked by or influenced every single artist, that would be just plain dumb. Any discrepancy you see between the popular view and the actual view has yet to be stated in any meaningful way, every emotional "example" you have put forward so far has been refuted by documented evidence or dismissed as not relevant (clothes, action figures, Brian May's guitar, etc.)
Unfortunately (for you) citing artists who where influenced by The Stones or The Beach Boys is making indirect reference to The Beatles because those two bands were affected by the mere existence of The Beatles in the 60s. The rivalry between those two bands and The Beatles is legendary - as is their mutual respect for each other. (you might like to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wilson)
You do need to seperate the serious from the tongue-in-cheek, and even post them seperately if necessary because what is evidently tongue-in-cheek to you could be taken seriously by me or anyone else unless you clearly telegraph which is which. But keep the tongue-in-cheek - I like humour and can be as silly as the next man.
I did not respond to your earlier statements as they were little more than emotional opinion and I seldom comment on that kind of post - people have opinions, I respect that (or see little point in arguing against it). I responded to the later posts that contained inaccuracies that made them contentious in my estimation, my replies to your posts have merely been attempts to counter those inaccuracies. Your initial posts read like you hold that they were not influential because you don't like them, not a stance I would encourage and not one I would get involved in refuting, that such comments create outcry doesn't surprise me and shouldn't surprise you.
I can go along with that, however, the posts I have made are not a defense of a favourite band (because they are not) nor have I cited critical or expert analysis just to validate my chosen band (because they are not my chosen band). I don't understand the social network comment, but I doubt it's important that I should.
I'm not a fan, (have I said this yet?). You said: "all they did was write uncomplicated pop songs" - my posting of the song analysis by Goodall, Allan W. Pollack etc. was to show that their apparently uncomplicated pop songs were far more complex than they first appear.
So? I fail to see your point here.
If you can hear any direct influences then you're listening to a tribute band. A band's influence and importance is not necessarily measured by how much you can hear them in other bands, for example Crimson's influence on the development of Progressive Rock is not measured by how much you can hear Crimson in later bands but by the impact their releases had on music produced after.
|
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
topographicbroadways
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: May 20 2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 5575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 30 2011 at 09:17 |
||||||||
|
The Beatles obviously have a massive influence, this thread started 8 months ago
Edited by topographicbroadways - April 30 2011 at 09:21 |
|||||||||
 
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 30 2011 at 08:53 |
||||||||
Nobody would ever stop you from disliking the Beatles or any other band or artist, because it's entirely your personal choice. But people like you are not satisfied with that. You assume that because you don't like something, it can't possibly be so important and influential as it is made out to be and all the people who believe it are just idiot fanboys. That, needless to say, is an incredibly elitist position and given your lack of strong defence for your position save flaming rants that mean precious little other than to say that you dislike them strongly (which we already know, duh!), you got the responses you deserved. 
Er, I like analyzing music and a lot of people do. What on earth is wrong with that? I also don't understand how understanding what goes into the music will somehow take away from its 'inherent value' - which is really all that Goodall did in those video-essays - and why music listeners must always be expected to regard it as superstitious ancestors regarded rain clouds - with apprehension and bewilderment. At the end of the day, it is my choice or Goodall's for that matter, so please do not pontificate on it, thank you kindly.
That is just your opinion and the way you experienced their music. It does not represent objective fact and therefore does not preclude us from disagreeing with you and expressing our reasons why. Ermmm, I hope you appreciate that a debate is two way. It cannot be you, BW, pontificating on why the world is totally wrong about Beatles and all of us listening quietly in reverent silence, so let me take this opportunity to burst your bubble. We have our reasons and have given them in extensive detail. Take it or leave it, debate on it if you wish, but don't crib. I, for instance, got into Beatles before I knew much about their significance to rock music so I am happily immune to the "overrated prejudice" that the music of popular bands gets subjected to. BY the same token, it would be so easy for me to suggest that you have built up some preconceived expectations of what you want the greatest rock band to sound like and that, more than anything, is what is stopping you from giving Beatles an impartial assessment. Edited by rogerthat - April 30 2011 at 08:55 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Floydman
Forum Groupie 
Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 30 2011 at 07:11 |
||||||||
Again are you serious? Do you expect everyone to prefer the Beatles over the Rolling Stones or the Beach Boys? It doesn't mean anything. When you are as popular as the Beatles you expect some backlash. There are people who like the Monkees more than the Velvet Underground what does it mean other than you acting like a troll. For example back in 1967 Roger Waters and Nick Mason in an interview called the Beatles as their favorite songwriters. Then again Pete Townshend said the Beatles backing tracks were flippin lousy and then went on to say "Eleanor Rigby" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" influenced his approach to songwriting. Then you have Brian Wilson saying that his goal to write an album as great as Rubber Soul. It really goes on and on.
As for Rush progressive rock was long established before they even started to recorded their own music and they were more influenced by Led Zeppelin. In the course of rock history there have been plenty of bands who have been more influenced by Led Zeppelin than the Beatles for example Rush or Pearl Jam but that does not mean you discredit what the Beatles accomplished or who they influenced. For example would there have been even a Black Sabbath without the Beatles influence on Ozzy Osbourne? Would there have been even been a Pink Floyd if Syd Barrett didn't think they were the band to change music.
You also neglect to say the Geddy Lee of Rush cites Paul McCartney as an influence on his bass playing or that members of Clash liked the Beatles. Maybe a little balance in your comments would be nice. It's fine if you don't like the Beatles but you sound like a kid who wants to create revisionist history. For example another one who said they liked the Rolling Stones more than the Beatles was John Cale of the Velvet Underground but like many were impacted greatly by the Beatles.
John Cale: When we were doing it, it was rock that really pulled me out of it. You have to kind of imagine what kind of atmosphere we were in, in the lower east side in New York when that was going on. I would wake up and have doo-wop groups in the doorway across the street. The Beatles landed and everything changed and I suddenly realized I missed out on my teenage years. I led a sheltered life. I was practicing scales instead of going out there and playing football. As for Zappa which Zappa are talking about the one that Velvet Underground says Zappa was jealous of the Beatles or the one who was making these comments?
Paul Zollo: "If you had to name a few songs written by other people that you consider to be great, what would they be?"
Zappa: "I liked 'Subterranean Homesick Blues' by Bob Dylan, I liked 'Paperback Writer' by the Beatles and 'I Am the Walrus.' And no one may not underestimate the impact of 'Louie Louie' the original Richard Berry version Frank Zappa once stated, that if the Beatles never happened, everyone would still be listening to stuff like Bobby Vee.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 30 2011 at 00:17 |
||||||||
Well, I'll be darned...I thought something was weird about that post. Yes, you are absolutely right; I did not catch the sarcasm, so I apologize for haranguing you with that lengthy reply. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17966 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 29 2011 at 22:46 |
||||||||
BW....sir, I will respectfully say that had you read this whole thread from the start, you would know that I 100% do not feel the Beatles are anywhere near godlike status.
And my answer to the OP question was YES. I too mentioned that Rush very rarely mentions the Beatles in any manner as an influence and specifically none of their early music comes close to being Beatles influenced.
Understand that my post above was me being sarcastic to this whole thread.
Although I am glad I got Dean back into it.....his posts are always enjoyable.
|
|||||||||
  
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 29 2011 at 21:59 |
||||||||
Ahhh...I will fully admit, you have hit the mushiest part of my soul dead-on  . Perhaps you scrolled through my Genesis reviews, noting that I gave 4-5 star ratings for every album from the Peter Gabriel era, including "Trespass?" That was a good tactic, appealing to my love of that band.  Well-played; you are a cruel apologist for the Beatles, indeed.  Despite this, my earlier point still stands. Not every major progressive-rock band or composer thought highly of the Beatles, or found them to be influential to their own music. Not every music artist was in love with them, or cited them directly. There still remains a discrepancy between the popular view of their influence, and their actual influence on widely respected music artists in the progressive rock genre. I have finished an earlier rebuttal to the Goodall documentary, but I hesitate to post it in this forum because I am highly critical of the documentary; also, my summary contains many tongue-in-cheek elements, and I think most people were not expecting that from this discussion. I may reconsider later though, so it may or may not appear. The final summary is two pages long, so the post may also be ridiculously long. I'll conclude this post by saying that I am not entirely sure why there was such a huge outcry to my earlier statements. People openly trash my favorite bands relentlessly to my face and in critical circles, but I don't get in a hissy fit about it, since to me listening to music should be about the personal reward and not the external reward from society. I say, if you need a critic or social network to validate your chosen band for you, than perhaps you are listening to that band for the wrong reasons. Over and over, I hear Beatles fans talk about this critic, and that critic who sing praises to their favorite group. Why not just enjoy the music for its own sake and inherent value, instead of dissecting and pontificating on each individual element like Goodall does? To me, the Beatles catalog represents a segment of popular music that is impersonal, pretentiously analyzed, and overly-laden with cultural significance. When I listen to the Beatles, I find that all I can really hear is the cultural behemoth of "greatest rock band in the world," and not the creative force that by all accounts, I should be hearing. In the end, the music suffers as a result. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 29 2011 at 21:56 |
||||||||
|
I like Siouxsie Sioux.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 29 2011 at 21:25 |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 29 2011 at 20:58 |
||||||||
That is an interesting interpretation. Still, based on the lyrics I do not think that Strummer was a Beatles fan, or would have cited them as a major influence. Here is an article about his musical roots that supports my view: http://www.emusic.com/lists/showlist.html?lid=22445900 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 29 2011 at 20:45 |
||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 29 2011 at 20:30 |
||||||||
Erm. No. Strummer is referring to the situation with The Clash following the end Punk in late 76/early 77. That's not a vague interpretation, it's in the lyric: "London Calling, now don't look to us, phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust". Notice that the preceding phrase refers to "us" (ie The Clash") making the "phony-Beatlemania" also a reference to them, which means that the success that he experienced was a phony-Beatlemania, not that Beatlemania was phony. Basically he's saying don't put The Clash on a pedestal like the Beatles. Edited by Dean - April 29 2011 at 20:33 |
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 29 2011 at 20:22 |
||||||||
Your logic fascinates and disturbs me. Perhaps you are more eager to hear what I have to say than you readily admit? |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 29 2011 at 19:05 |
||||||||
So...it is a crime to question the Beatles now? This comment is indicative of the unbalanced view of the subject at hand, and your ridiculous comparison of the Beatles to mythical sky beings discredits your own assertions. Had I used profane language in my posts, you might have had a legitimate concern. I and many others have voiced our opinions on this issue, many of which have literally contradicted what you believe to be true. I personally think that my posts add value to this discussion, because not many people are willing to question popularly-accepted views on the Beatles contributions to music. Without multiple perspectives, this discussion would be nothing more than a stagnant rehash of every other Beatles debate in existence. Interestingly enough, the Beatles contributions to progressive rock as a whole may not have been as extensive as some here are pointing out. Both Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart of Rush have gone on record as stating that the Rolling Stones were more of an influence on their music than the Beatles. In his semi-autobiographical Traveling Music book, Peart even goes so far as to say that he never listens to the Beatles, and is more of a Beach Boys fan. Frank Zappa echoes these sentiments at the beginning of the attached interview, stating that the Beatles were a less integral band to him in comparison to the Rolling Stones during the 60's. Do you like The Clash? One of their most famous songs, named "London Calling," contains the lyrics "phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust." Presumably, if the Beatles were so important to the development of rock music, every rock luminary in history would line up behind them. Joe Strummer clearly thinks that the Beatles weren't very good. Not everyone has to agree about whether or not the Beatles were important to rock music, so I think the debate is fair, and this thread should remain open. If it does not, I can still express my views on their music through the individual album review system. Edited by Barking Weasel - April 29 2011 at 19:43 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 23 2005 Location: Caerdydd Status: Offline Points: 32995 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 29 2011 at 19:01 |
||||||||
|
^ He was online just now looking at this thread so I was trying to second guess it. He's offline now. Maybe he knows he's beaten?
I doubt it though.
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 29 2011 at 18:54 |
||||||||
 (not sure what that smiley's there for or even what it means, so I never really had a need for it before and wanted to put something)
|
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 23 2005 Location: Caerdydd Status: Offline Points: 32995 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 29 2011 at 18:46 |
||||||||
I expect a reply from BW very soon.
 |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 910111213 28> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Barking Weasel wrote: