Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Do the Beatles get too much credit..
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Do the Beatles get too much credit..
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1617181920 27>
Poll Question: See opening post for question.
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
52 [30.95%]
113 [67.26%]
3 [1.79%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13056 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2011 at 21:30
Originally posted by giselle giselle wrote:

Originally posted by overmatik overmatik wrote:

Come on guys, this excuse for not playing live because they couldn't hear themselves is ridiculous. You could always put more speakers.
What a staggering comment, staggering because of its blindness about history; the Beatles were playing with state of the art amplification for the times; in fact, as has been said by historians, not just me, the Beatles invented the modern touring era. It wasn't like it is now, by any means. Check it out!
 
Listen to any live performance, there is a constant shrieking roar. It's not just a matter of crowd noise, but a lack of decent monitors during the period they were playing. If you've ever played live with bad monitors, you'll know what I'm talking about.
 


Edited by The Dark Elf - April 14 2011 at 21:31
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
giselle View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote giselle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2011 at 15:28
Originally posted by overmatik overmatik wrote:

Come on guys, this excuse for not playing live because they couldn't hear themselves is ridiculous. You could always put more speakers.
What a staggering comment, staggering because of its blindness about history; the Beatles were playing with state of the art amplification for the times; in fact, as has been said by historians, not just me, the Beatles invented the modern touring era. It wasn't like it is now, by any means. Check it out!
Back to Top
overmatik View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: July 15 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 96 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote overmatik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2011 at 14:56
Come on guys, this excuse for not playing live because they couldn't hear themselves is ridiculous. You could always put more speakers.
"Wear the grudge like a crown of negativity. Calculate what we will or will not tolerate. Desperate to control all and everything. Unable to forgive your scarlet letterman."
Back to Top
Zargus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 08 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 3491 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zargus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 14 2011 at 06:44
No i dont think so.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slartibartfast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 13 2011 at 06:40
I suspect they'd rather have money than credit.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13056 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2011 at 21:31
Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Frank Zappa deserves far more credit than the Beatles...he was more influential on 20th century music as a whole not just because of the fact that his early albums directly influenced the Beatles...
 
The Beatles had many influences, and I would say that Bob Dylan was a bigger influence on them than Zappa overall. At this point, I think you're trying to hard to weasel Zappa (if you'll pardon the pun) into the conversation. As far as the guitar, Hendrix had a far greater influence over many generations of guitarists than Zappa.
 
Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

The Beatles couldn't function autonomously or even tour after awhile, because the mystique surrounding them got to be so bloated and perverse.
 
Ummm...hello...they couldn't hear themselves in concert. The exercise of playing live was useless to them, so they channeled their creativity into the studio, which was revelatory.
 
Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Call me biased, but I can't say with full confidence that the Beatles deserve all of the credit they get in the music industry.   
 
Okay, you are biased. And rather nearsighted. I suggest you go view the excellent documentary Dean posted a page or so back. Perhaps you can gain some perspective.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
giselle View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote giselle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2011 at 16:59

provocative as usual! Doesn't make any sense though, as I'm sure you realise only too well.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Forum Guest Group
Forum Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 12 2011 at 14:41
Frank Zappa deserves far more credit than the Beatles...he was more influential on 20th century music as a whole not just because of the fact that his early albums directly influenced the Beatles, but because he paved the way for innovative quality and exceptional showmanship in modern music.  With a revolving cast of excellent musicians like Aynsley Dunbar, Vinnie Coliuata, Steve Vai (err..ok, maybe not all that great...), and others, his legacy is truly a foundation of rock music.  The Beatles couldn't function autonomously or even tour after awhile, because the mystique surrounding them got to be so bloated and perverse.
 
The Beatles were great at marketing and merchandising themselves through trinkets and television, but the quality of their actual music remains, to my ears, dismal.  Call me biased, but I can't say with full confidence that the Beatles deserve all of the credit they get in the music industry.   
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 11 2011 at 12:11
Originally posted by Harry Hood Harry Hood wrote:

  The result is having lots of terrible soulless music shoved down our throats at every opportunity. The world overall became a much "noisier" place after the Beatles success.


This again is a strange complaint to make considering you believe it was great jazz and classical music that was denied to us by the success of Beatles. In a certain sense, the avant garde end of jazz and classical is noise too.  Yes, it's very academically important and all that and what I've just said should in no way suggest I dislike that kind of music but in the same way, a justification can be made too for the noisier music that Beatles supposedly spawned.  And I don't even believe they spawned the noisy side of rock anyway.  Rather, their success paved away for hard rock, which was really more an offshoot of blues and didn't have a whole lot to do with baroque pop.  And since we are dealing in hypothetical things here, it's quite possible that with or without the Beatles, such heavy music would have emerged and some of it would have been lacking in soul.  A

nd as I said before, I don't believe that the absence of Beatles would have given us more Time Outs. Jazz would have only gotten more and more avant garde and more and more beyond the reach of general listeners, thus losing mainstream appeal.  It was the road classical went down before either Elvis or Beatles made a dent and there's no reason it wouldn't have happened to jazz without the Beatles. Which is why, I am thankful at least Beatles carved out a niche of serious-popular music and we didn't have to make do with just several Elvis-type artists.  


Edited by rogerthat - April 11 2011 at 12:12
Back to Top
Harry Hood View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1305 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harry Hood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 10 2011 at 22:03
Elvis was big, but in no way was he as big as the Beatles were. Elvis was mostly an American phenomenon, the Beatles captivated worldwide audiences in a way that hasn't really happened since (without the aid of bruteforce marketing strategies). Bands are still emulating the style of the Bealtes to this day, you don't really see any popular acts trying to emulate Elvis. Elvis became dated very quickly.

Yes the Elvises and Perry Comos and other "music for the masses" existed before the Beatles and would probably still exist. Generally though you could avoid these artists entirely if you had no desire to hear them. But ever since the Beatles happened, Sinatra-level success was no longer enough, suddenly everyone was trying (and are still trying) to find the next "Beatlemania". The result is having lots of terrible soulless music shoved down our throats at every opportunity. The world overall became a much "noisier" place after the Beatles success.

Any so called "innovation" the Beatles paved the way for wasn't really innovation at all, just artists and labels trying to capitalize on the success of Sgt. Pepper. We didn't see any real innovation until after the Beatles broke up, and even then their shadow loomed over every single artist, creating limitations that many of them weren't even aware of.

I'm not saying the Beatles are the reason we can't have good music. There's so much excellent "post-Beatles" music that I know and love. I realize a lot of my favorite artists have a heavy Beatles influence. Hell I even like and listen to Abbey Road on occasion. I'm just saying that without the Beatles music would have overall probably been even better than what we have now. 


Edited by Harry Hood - April 10 2011 at 22:06
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 10 2011 at 21:34
Originally posted by Harry Hood Harry Hood wrote:

If anything the Beatles are given so much credit that's it's actually detrimental to the music artform as a whole. The gravity of their success and the influence resulting from that spoils the sound of music even today. 

The world of music would have probably been better off if they hadn't existed. Pop music/rock and roll would have probably become and remained something of a niche, allowing more intellectual genres like jazz and classical to continue having commercial viability. The music "industry" as we know it today would have never existed, or taken a completely different form entirely. 

I imagine this alternate reality probably has some amazing mindblowing music that we will never get to hear because the Beatles existed.


Let's not forget that Elvis was already a star before the Beatles. The emergence of popular music as big business had more to do with the improvement in recording facilities. Also, classical in the 40s and 50s and jazz in the 60s progressed to a stage where some of it required the audience too to be very musically conversant to grasp the full significance of these compositions. I am skeptical as to what extent this would have been commercially viable with or without the Beatles.  So, you needed popular music to find a commercially viable alternative for the general public.  With the advent of the Beatles and their later career, there was at least a window of time in which popular music could also be challenging and interesting. 
Back to Top
ShipOfFools View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 23 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 107 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ShipOfFools Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 10 2011 at 14:29
They were four incredibly talented musicians and songwriters, who created a legacy that can't be denied. 

"Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings peace" - Buddha
Back to Top
jammun View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jammun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 09 2011 at 23:53
Hell, blame it all on Alexis Korner. 
 
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
Back to Top
jean-marie View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 27 2010
Location: FRANCE
Status: Offline
Points: 2585 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jean-marie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2011 at 15:26
definitively no!!! the beatles deserve what they got, they're great close this stupid topic
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oliverstoned Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 30 2011 at 09:53
I mean that yes they have been very influent: many progbands reflect the Beatles influence.

And no because they are not as precursor as it seems. They have popularized things that were already existing in the Underground.
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oliverstoned Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 30 2011 at 08:56
Yes and no.
Back to Top
giselle View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote giselle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 30 2011 at 08:41
Originally posted by Harry Hood Harry Hood wrote:

If anything the Beatles are given so much credit that's it's actually detrimental to the music artform as a whole. The gravity of their success and the influence resulting from that spoils the sound of music even today. 

The world of music would have probably been better off if they hadn't existed. Pop music/rock and roll would have probably become and remained something of a niche, allowing more intellectual genres like jazz and classical to continue having commercial viability. The music "industry" as we know it today would have never existed, or taken a completely different form entirely. 

I imagine this alternate reality probably has some amazing mindblowing music that we will never get to hear because the Beatles existed.
An alternative reality? An interesting and provocative post that shouldn't be readily dismissed.
Back to Top
Harry Hood View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1305 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harry Hood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2011 at 03:35
If anything the Beatles are given so much credit that's it's actually detrimental to the music artform as a whole. The gravity of their success and the influence resulting from that spoils the sound of music even today. 

The world of music would have probably been better off if they hadn't existed. Pop music/rock and roll would have probably become and remained something of a niche, allowing more intellectual genres like jazz and classical to continue having commercial viability. The music "industry" as we know it today would have never existed, or taken a completely different form entirely. 

I imagine this alternate reality probably has some amazing mindblowing music that we will never get to hear because the Beatles existed.
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17846 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catcher10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2011 at 21:14
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

...
Their massive influence and popularity is indisputable, and one might well say, in fact I would, that they revolutionized pop music (I don't think they revolutionized musique concrete which they adpated techniques from which I've heard the Beatles credited for as originators), but I've framed this topipc/ poll in terms of origination and innovation of musical styles/ ideas/ techniques.  For those people who have said they deserve every bit of credit, that's where I have a problem.  I agree that they should get a lot of credit, but when I see people saying that the Beatles invented psychedelic music, Raga rock, Prog Rock, invented tape loop techniques for music etc, then I wonder.  People who worked with the Beatles (if once consider consider to be the fab four themselves and not people such as George Martin and studio engineers) may not get enough credit.
...
 
But you must take radio history and the control of the arts at the time via radio, television and movies.
 
If you ever see the Tom Dowd DVD, some of this will come a bit clearer, but the biggest problem with people discussing this is that people think that the Beatles did it by themselves, when there were massive art scenes and movie scenes that were much more important and visible, that helped the Beatles find their own vibe ... and that vibe was contrary to what the "radio" folks wanted ... but by that time, they were selling so much, that most of the "radio" folks had to be totally stupid not to play it, and help make it more important.
 
But what is sad is seeing that no one in American Theater, Film, Music or Literature was important, and didn't help, and neither did anyone else in the same vein in England or all over Europe, which you know damn well is screwed up ...
 
You must go listen to "Revolution #9" and break it down, so you can get a better idea of what is in there ... and it is "A Day In Life" ... with a microphone wide open in the streets of London (let's say) ... but no one is really giving their astuteness and abilities some credit for having done more than just a pop song ... at least when compared to what was there before ... which was crap!
 
In the end, I don't think that the Beatles were as important as what was going around them. I think they happened to have become the biggest commercial success of all of them, but that's saying that Ross Perot and the guy that flyes the colored balls are God because they have ripped off so many people, and the rest is not worth talking about, because we know they are famous and big and that must be right!
 
Today, I look at Marat/Sade, or even the Royal Shakespeare Company, the electronica out of Germany, the new wave film makers in France ... as much more important and valuable experientially than the Beatles ... but that is not to say that as a kid I did not like them ... I did, and I have a lot of respect for John, specially, for his honesty. I got tired of Paul after the Ram and Band on the Run. George on his own was not my thing, and I am not sure that he was as focused as he wishes he were, and Ringo was just songs! Individually, these guys did not "have it" ... and that leaves only one  person left ... the one that SHOULD get the credit more than them ... Mr. George Martin!
 
As much as I believe they get too much credit, for so many things people on this site list as what they "should get credit for...". Mosh hits the nail on the head...again, and I agree with him 100%........Lets start a new thread...Who? Should get credit for The Beatles success......
 
 
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17510 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2011 at 20:01
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

...
Their massive influence and popularity is indisputable, and one might well say, in fact I would, that they revolutionized pop music (I don't think they revolutionized musique concrete which they adpated techniques from which I've heard the Beatles credited for as originators), but I've framed this topipc/ poll in terms of origination and innovation of musical styles/ ideas/ techniques.  For those people who have said they deserve every bit of credit, that's where I have a problem.  I agree that they should get a lot of credit, but when I see people saying that the Beatles invented psychedelic music, Raga rock, Prog Rock, invented tape loop techniques for music etc, then I wonder.  People who worked with the Beatles (if once consider consider to be the fab four themselves and not people such as George Martin and studio engineers) may not get enough credit.
...
 
But you must take radio history and the control of the arts at the time via radio, television and movies.
 
If you ever see the Tom Dowd DVD, some of this will come a bit clearer, but the biggest problem with people discussing this is that people think that the Beatles did it by themselves, when there were massive art scenes and movie scenes that were much more important and visible, that helped the Beatles find their own vibe ... and that vibe was contrary to what the "radio" folks wanted ... but by that time, they were selling so much, that most of the "radio" folks had to be totally stupid not to play it, and help make it more important.
 
But what is sad is seeing that no one in American Theater, Film, Music or Literature was important, and didn't help, and neither did anyone else in the same vein in England or all over Europe, which you know damn well is screwed up ...
 
You must go listen to "Revolution #9" and break it down, so you can get a better idea of what is in there ... and it is "A Day In Life" ... with a microphone wide open in the streets of London (let's say) ... but no one is really giving their astuteness and abilities some credit for having done more than just a pop song ... at least when compared to what was there before ... which was crap!
 
In the end, I don't think that the Beatles were as important as what was going around them. I think they happened to have become the biggest commercial success of all of them, but that's saying that Ross Perot and the guy that flyes the colored balls are God because they have ripped off so many people, and the rest is not worth talking about, because we know they are famous and big and that must be right!
 
Today, I look at Marat/Sade, or even the Royal Shakespeare Company, the electronica out of Germany, the new wave film makers in France ... as much more important and valuable experientially than the Beatles ... but that is not to say that as a kid I did not like them ... I did, and I have a lot of respect for John, specially, for his honesty. I got tired of Paul after the Ram and Band on the Run. George on his own was not my thing, and I am not sure that he was as focused as he wishes he were, and Ringo was just songs! Individually, these guys did not "have it" ... and that leaves only one  person left ... the one that SHOULD get the credit more than them ... Mr. George Martin!


Edited by moshkito - March 28 2011 at 20:04
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1617181920 27>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.195 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.