Do the Beatles get too much credit..

... in the 1960s they just used to put butter on the door handle.

The Dark Elf wrote:   Oh, I don't disagree with your point, Roger. It's the manner in which such references are couched that make the difference. Bemoaning the fact that there wasn't a "reasoned debate" while at the same time slurring and demeaning a performer is nothing less than a joke.    It would be as if I attacked a performer he revered, such as Frank Zappa, and make ludicrous statements like "Zappa is merely Spike Jones with an electric guitar", or "the only influence Zappa had was on Weird Al Yancovic's parodies", or "the only way Zappa could earn money was to make sophomoric jokes about yellow snow and dog-doo snow cones", in an effort to minimize the artist without any historical perspective, would be wrong and not at all the proper way to accomplish a "reasoned debate". It would accomplish the exact opposite, and both you and I know that.

Pah, the reasoned debate line is just a defensive retreat.  He won't admit he's wrong so he tries to blame it on everybody else being Beatles fanboys. Very convenient.

rogerthat wrote: It's ok if he thinks they sound like a boy band. It's not without a grain of truth because boy bands, among many other styles of rock, channeled the Beatles in some or other way.   But inferring therefore that their influence on rock music is just a lie invented by the media is where he lost the plot.

Barking Weasel wrote: None of this is new information to me, I am not a huge Stones fan myself so I could really care less about their influence, except as it pertains to favorite artists of mine like Rush and Frank Zappa.

Edited by The Dark Elf - May 01 2011 at 10:28

pseudo debate - well you said it. And yes, you are miles out of line, a frustrating lack of historical perspective. You're either incredibly insular or being deliberately provocative. Your choice of name makes either possible.

Barking Weasel wrote: russellk wrote: This shows exactly one thing and no more: that marketers usually know nothing about the content of that which they market. But that does not explain why the Beatles were willing to appear on the cover of that magazine in the first place; thus, they responded in the affirmative to the gossip mill that was promoted by those same marketers.

Two words: contractual obligation.

russellk wrote: This shows exactly one thing and no more: that marketers usually know nothing about the content of that which they market.

But that does not explain why the Beatles were willing to appear on the cover of that magazine in the first place; thus, they responded in the affirmative to the gossip mill that was promoted by those same marketers. 

In no way. However, if things go a bit more in this direction, the Progarchives Member Typology might become enriched with a new entry. 

The Dark Elf wrote:   Hey look, isn't that Keith Richards trying desperately to look like Justin Bieber in a Rolling Stones monthly fan magazine (produced by Teen Beat, no less)? Wow, and I thought The Rolling Stones were cool. Who knew the supposed bad boys of rock and roll marketed themselves just like The Beatles?   Again, get a clue. Once more your lack of knowledge about the time period is patently obvious. Your continuing diatribe is tedious, inaccurate, evidently biased and, ultimately, unconvincing. You hate The Beatles, fine. You are clearly in the minority among people with a grasp of music fundamentals and historical perspective.

Let me clarify, because I did make a mistake in the original post you are referring to.  That image of the Beatles originally appeared in a pop-celebrity magazine, and not specifically a "Beatles fan" magazine as I stated earlier.  The same magazine conducted interviews with the Monkees, a cover of which I have also posted.

There are a few key differences in the Rolling Stones fan magazine and the Beatles cover story.  For starters, there is no advertising for specific content on the front cover of the RS fan magazine you posted.  Secondly, the Rolling Stones image is from a "fan-specific" magazine, and not a generic tabloid like the Bieber and Beatles cover images.  Also, an immediate comparison of the Rolling Stones to the Justin Bieber magazine cover seems far less visually convincing than the Beatles cover that I used.  The Rolling Stones have serious facial expressions, do not smile, have straighter posture, and actually appear to have organized themselves for that photo.  In other words, the RS cover is less of a candid shot than the other magazine covers, which appear to capture their subjects in a more spur-of-the-moment, relaxed composure.

If you find the discussion based upon my posts tedious, you can choose not to participate in it.  I am not forcing you to engage in this forum.  Please, by all means feel free to quit responding and I won't hold it against you.  I feel like this debate is actually good for me though, because I've learned quite a bit from the other posters here, and I've had to check out books from the library on the subject of Frank Zappa and the Beatles so that I can learn more about the context of the claims made about the influence of the Beatles.  So I will continue to argue my case when I have the free time to do so, because I think that there is more to the story.        

russellk wrote: ^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.

What is more telling for me is the similarity in their portrayal, in that they are each described as teen pop idols rather than serious artists.  I was honestly shocked when I first contrasted those two images, so I can understand other readers feeling the same way when they see them placed side-by-side.  The eerie similarities in appearance notwithstanding, the salacious, gossipy tell-all content being advertised is practically identical in both of these magazine covers.  Note: I do not seriously object to salacious content and gossip, and I am not implying that it should be censored; I am just noting that Bieber and the Beatles share very similar characteristics in regard to their public identities and personas when contrasted with one another.

Based on the content of the above magazine, how were the Beatles any more of a "spear tip of change" for artistic integrity than the Monkees? The latter group appears in a 1967 issue from the same magazine:




Clearly, the motives for these tacky appearances were not artistic in nature for either the Beatles or the Monkees.  A band that stoops to this level of media pandering seems an unlikely candidate for "game-changer" in the music industry.  How is this any different than our typical media onslaught of celebrity in the modern age?  In fact, it seems that the Beatles and their celebrity were the natural precursor to Bieber, if the posted magazine images are any indication.