Do the Beatles get too much credit..

Barking Weasel wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: Barking Weasel wrote: I don't understand why the Beatles are regarded as an extraordinarily "experimental" pop group...   Yes, that you fundamentally do not understand the concept has been pointed out to you several times in this thread. When you use shampoo, do you follow the instructions implicity "Wash, Rinse, Repeat" until the bottle is empty?   Barking Weasel wrote: ...most of that reputation seems derived from "The White Album,"   No, that is not the case. Not at all. Again, reading other poster's comments would aid you in gaining perspective.   Barking Weasel wrote: I am surprised at the level of Beatles adoration that is still pervasive today.    Perhaps it is because people really love their music?   Barking Weasel wrote: Lots of musicians have outstripped them technologically...   Absurd comment. The same could be said for Mozart or Beethoven.    Barking Weasel wrote: ...and have also reached far greater heights of musicality.    Really? Name them. We can critique those bands as well.   Barking Weasel wrote: The Beatles are a cretaceous-era bubble-gum pop band.    So, wait...you don't like The Beatles then? Who would have guessed.   I am sorry to hear that you do not agree with what I have to say.  Fortunately, there are many ways of perceiving the world and listening to music, and a wide variety of perspectives makes human existence more fascinating and vital.  The fact that you have resorted to mean-spiritedness in your posts does nothing to enhance your own argument.  I provide a solid critique in my posts, explaining why I think the way I do.  I can accept the fact that other people have differing views, which is a policy that I suggest you adopt.

The problem, BW, is that you have not provided a solid critique whatsoever, unless you consider insulting slams and vague opinion with no factual basis to somehow be the opposite of insubstantial. The above quoted post is a perfect example of the type of comments you have posted throughout this thread. We got your opinion 10 posts ago and your rhetoric has not changed.

Logan wrote: Undoubtedly the Beatles were hugely influential (has been incredibly popular), but do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination? I certainly think so.

Of course.They had to quit in 1970 ,while they were still ahead(barely),in order to keep up their facade of the world's greatest band.If they would have made even 1 more album,they would have exposed themselves for the has-beens they were.If anyone else would have wrote Hey Jude,their biggest selling song,it never would have made the Top 100.Notice it hardly ever gets played anymore and is pretty well forgotten,as it has no lasting appeal because it's such a terrible song.Oh and I know there's still some sheep out there who think it's a great song being brain-washed into thinking so.They did a lot of other terrible songs shortly before they broke up and some were big hits,like the Ballad of John and Yoko,yech!And that was no.1 in England.In fact ,there were a lot of crappy no.1 songs in America before they broke up.Anything with their name on it would sell big no matter how bad they were-Lady Madonna,Get Back,Yellow Submarine(no.2 in U.S.,no.1 in England)Come Together,yea I know Aerosmith covered it which figures,A crappy song for a crappy band.Could you hear Aerosmith doing Eleanor Rigby?And some of their albums have been played so many times ,they've become really annoying,like Abbey Road.The Beatles pulled a big con game on America.Before they got here ,they were playing the sleaziest strip joints in the red-light district of Liverpool.When they 1st came flew to America,their manager paid an orphan girl-school to scream their heads off when they arrived at the airport and he made sure there was plenty of press there to capture the event.They may have had more no.1 hits than anyother band in America(21),but there were so many other better bands out there-Cream,Jimi Hendrix Experience,Moody Blues,The Nice,Deep Purple,Santana,B,S&T,Chicago,Genesis,Yes,King Crmson,Renaissance,to name just a few.After they broke up,scores more  better bands hit the scene and they knew they'd made it out by the skin of their teeth.They were totally washed up.The LSD they'd taken during the psychodelic era had burned their brains out,just look what they came up with on their 1st solo albums.

Barking Weasel wrote: I don't understand why the Beatles are regarded as an extraordinarily "experimental" pop group...most of that reputation seems derived from "The White Album," but the more esoteric aspects of that record are not highly praised amongst lots of true Beatles fans, or many casual fans.  I myself enjoy "Revolution #9," and have fond memories of doodling in art class while trying to make the drawings match the imagery of the music I was hearing.  That track sounds like a highly magnified version of something Faust would make, which really intrigues me despite my general apathy towards Faust. If anything, the Beatles were far less experimental than their potential showed.  Despite the inclusion of various eclectic sound collages and instrumental noodling, these few experimental tracks seem like an afterthought in the larger picture of their work.  Instead, jangly guitars and poppy commercial tracks are the main staple of the Beatles oeuvre. I am surprised at the level of Beatles adoration that is still pervasive today.  Lots of musicians have outstripped them technologically, and have also reached far greater heights of musicality.  The Beatles are a cretaceous-era bubble-gum pop band.

I'll be honest here, you may have topped the comment that The Beatles quit playing live because they were lousy musicians and couldn't play live. When you say lots of musicians outstripped the Beatles technologically what do you mean? They revolutionized recording technology, doing more with four track recordings than many now days do with upwards to 24 tracks. Many times they were ahead of the technology that was available (who else was touring stadiums in 64 and 65? The Stones???...no) Some bands may have achieved far greater heights of musicality as you say...but I'll take superior songwriting and damn solid playing over musicians trying to impress me with their musical skills.  Criticize them all you want but I really don't think Paul or Ringo care all to much about it; the response their music has had on a great many people speaks for itself. Cretaceous era bubble gum pop??? How many other bands that started out like the Beatles (paying pop tunes and the like) suddenly became the face of an entire social movement and legitimized rock and roll as a serous art form? I'm pretty sure you can count them on one hand




Edited by mr.cub - April 19 2011 at 23:04

Barking Weasel wrote: I provide a solid critique in my posts, explaining why I think the way I do.  I can accept the fact that other people have differing views, which is a policy that I suggest you adopt.

A solid critique? The same kind of logic that says the Holocaust never happened.

Barking Weasel wrote: I don't understand why the Beatles are regarded as an extraordinarily "experimental" pop group...most of that reputation seems derived from "The White Album," but the more esoteric aspects of that record are not highly praised amongst lots of true Beatles fans, or many casual fans.  I myself enjoy "Revolution #9," and have fond memories of doodling in art class while trying to make the drawings match the imagery of the music I was hearing.  That track sounds like a highly magnified version of something Faust would make, which really intrigues me despite my general apathy towards Faust. If anything, the Beatles were far less experimental than their potential showed.  Despite the inclusion of various eclectic sound collages and instrumental noodling, these few experimental tracks seem like an afterthought in the larger picture of their work.  Instead, jangly guitars and poppy commercial tracks are the main staple of the Beatles oeuvre. I am surprised at the level of Beatles adoration that is still pervasive today.  Lots of musicians have outstripped them technologically, and have also reached far greater heights of musicality.  The Beatles are a cretaceous-era bubble-gum pop band.

Ignoring the slightly offensive last statement, I have to disagree with the "White Album" statement. If anything that was more of a back to roots album than the previous 2. The experimentation really started after they gave up touring and started on Revolver.

The Beatles changed the music world, what could i say more.......

giselle wrote: This is a windup as usual. The Beatles constructed the stage the whole rock business is setting up on. If that hadn't produced technological and musical advance, that would be disgraceful, but it took leaders, not followers to show the way.

 

I don't understand why the Beatles are regarded as an extraordinarily "experimental" pop group...most of that reputation seems derived from "The White Album," but the more esoteric aspects of that record are not highly praised amongst lots of true Beatles fans, or many casual fans.  I myself enjoy "Revolution #9," and have fond memories of doodling in art class while trying to make the drawings match the imagery of the music I was hearing.  That track sounds like a highly magnified version of something Faust would make, which really intrigues me despite my general apathy towards Faust.

If anything, the Beatles were far less experimental than their potential showed.  Despite the inclusion of various eclectic sound collages and instrumental noodling, these few experimental tracks seem like an afterthought in the larger picture of their work.  Instead, jangly guitars and poppy commercial tracks are the main staple of the Beatles oeuvre.

I am surprised at the level of Beatles adoration that is still pervasive today.  Lots of musicians have outstripped them technologically, and have also reached far greater heights of musicality.  The Beatles are a cretaceous-era bubble-gum pop band.          

giselle wrote: 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!

     anyway it just needs to watch Let it be , when the fab four play Get back on the flat roof, the Beatles were good playing live and the reason is very simple,they 've been playing together for a long time, so many gigs

giselle wrote: 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!

Edited by The Dark Elf - April 14 2011 at 21:31