Do the Beatles get too much credit.. |
Post Reply | Page <1 7891011 28> |
Author | ||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
If I could just take an hour of your time...
part 1:
part 2:
part 3:
part 4:
part 5:
part 6:
Edited by Dean - March 19 2011 at 07:49 |
||
What?
|
||
StarMan2112
Forum Newbie Joined: March 23 2011 Location: Florida Status: Offline Points: 28 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
Mr.GizaRainbow
Forum Newbie Joined: March 25 2011 Location: miami Status: Offline Points: 18 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
They totally deserve every bit of credit, they influenced so many great bands and inspired many others, became very popular and revolutionized music in a very short period of time.
no doubt they should get a lot of credit.
|
||
"I always say that it’s about breaking the rules. But the secret of breaking rules in a way that works is understanding what the rules are in the first place"
|
||
Ruby900
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 03 2009 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 739 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Of course they don't, what a silly Poll.
|
||
"I always say that it’s about breaking the rules. But the secret of breaking rules in a way that works is understanding what the rules are in the first place". Rick Wakeman
|
||
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 36334 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. The Beatles were experimental, and while that kind of experimentation was uncommon in pop, or poppy, music (but not unheard of in similar styles of music, but more underground), it was common in Western Art music of the time. I don't actually think that The Beatles were nearly as avant garde as some people claim. And though I really like the Beatles 'music, and it was hugely influential to much music I love, I think that the likes of Stockhausen, Xenakis, Nono, Ligetti, Schnittke were doing even more interesting things. Of course what I could say is that they receive too much credit from some and not enough from others.
Of course they do (at least from some), what a silly Post. {edited to add emoticon as otherwise my response seems harsher than intended}. Incidentally, I suspect that some who voted did not understand how I was framing the question. Edited by Logan - March 27 2011 at 13:33 |
||
davidk
Forum Groupie Joined: January 17 2011 Location: USA - English Status: Offline Points: 69 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
People seem to forget that The Mothers of Invention's Freak Out influenced Sgt Peppers just as much if not more than Pet Sounds.
|
||
moshkito
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17799 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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 |
||
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Offline Points: 17875 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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......
|
||
|
||
Harry Hood
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 15 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1305 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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.
|
||
|
||
giselle
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 18 2011 Location: Hertford Status: Offline Points: 466 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes and no.
|
||
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
jean-marie
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 27 2010 Location: FRANCE Status: Offline Points: 2585 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
definitively no!!! the beatles deserve what they got, they're great close this stupid topic
|
||
jammun
Prog Reviewer Joined: July 14 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3449 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hell, blame it all on Alexis Korner.
|
||
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
||
ShipOfFools
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 23 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 107 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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 |
||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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. |
||
Harry Hood
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 15 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1305 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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 |
||
|
||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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 |
||
Guests
Forum Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
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.
|
||
giselle
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 18 2011 Location: Hertford Status: Offline Points: 466 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
provocative as usual! Doesn't make any sense though, as I'm sure you realise only too well. |
||
Post Reply | Page <1 7891011 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 |