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 2021222324 28>
Poll Question: See opening post for question.
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
54 [31.40%]
115 [66.86%]
3 [1.74%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thellama73 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2011 at 21:58
Originally posted by 40footwolf 40footwolf wrote:

I wouldn't have as much trouble with the Beatles getting so much credit if the groups that surrounded them in the '60s got some of the credit too. You never hear about how much the San Francisco psychedelic scene, SPECIFICALLY this scene and not just nebulous "psychedelic music" that nobody bothers to define, influenced their later work, or how much of "Sgt. Pepper's" is borrowing form the playbook of "Freak Out!" by Frank Zappa. Hardcore music fans will tell you this, of course, but it should be common knowledge. It's unfair to the other great bands of the '60s to think that rock music began with "Revolver". 


I completely agree with this. While the Beatles were incredibly important, they didn't exist in a vacuum, and bands like the 13th floor elevators were having quite an impact as well.
Back to Top
Mellotron Storm View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 27 2006
Location: The Beach
Status: Offline
Points: 13663 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mellotron Storm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2011 at 21:51
I think they deserve all the credit they receive. Influential,innovative trail blazers.They weren't followers,they led the parade.
"The wind is slowly tearing her apart"

"Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN
Back to Top
Bonnek View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 01 2009
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 4521 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bonnek Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2011 at 16:31

I think that the biggest part of their audience gives them credit for the quality of their songwriting.

It's only us here who are having nice debates such as this one, challenging their innovative and creative qualities.
In that respect, I think they were a catalyst mostly, using ideas from others, adding their own songwriting flair and channeling everything to the masses, many of them ready with guitars and a mike to start up their own band.

I think along similar lines about Bowie and Eno (except for the songwriting skills in his case).
Back to Top
40footwolf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 08 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 651 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 40footwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2011 at 15:14
I wouldn't have as much trouble with the Beatles getting so much credit if the groups that surrounded them in the '60s got some of the credit too. You never hear about how much the San Francisco psychedelic scene, SPECIFICALLY this scene and not just nebulous "psychedelic music" that nobody bothers to define, influenced their later work, or how much of "Sgt. Pepper's" is borrowing form the playbook of "Freak Out!" by Frank Zappa. Hardcore music fans will tell you this, of course, but it should be common knowledge. It's unfair to the other great bands of the '60s to think that rock music began with "Revolver". 
Heaven's made a cesspool of us all.
Back to Top
AllP0werToSlaves View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 29 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 249 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AllP0werToSlaves Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2011 at 13:14
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:

Roger hat; I won't argue with you because, just like almost always on discussion forums, two people do have accurate views but for whatever reason don't see eye to eye and that is fine. You raise excellent points and I apologize for coming off too strong with that last post there. I'm a huge Gorguts fan! Although I agree with you about extreme metal needing a start, Gorguts "Obscura" and "From Wisdom To Hate" is amongst the most un-orthodox metal around. There are others that I am aware of, but Gorguts did indeed innovate their sound after the early 90's. Of course they owe their start to Metallica and Slayer I wasn't trying to argue that; I think a lot of my point got obscured by my intense delivery which is unfortunate.

Not doubting the Beatles paid their dues, just like all great bands. I was just saying that bands whom the media believes will sell best are pushed more than others, which is just simple business. This in turn gets fed to the people who are heavily biased by media and advertising, that's all I was saying. Of course that has no effect on the music, just people's opinions on it to an extent. No hard feelings man!



Just want to clarify that I have heard Obscura and it is one of the most interesting metal releases from the 90s, however remains riff based extreme metal music pioneered by Metallica and Slayer, among others (Napalm Death, Death, Morbid Angel, Bathory, etc).  It is doubtless an innovative release, I don't think I said it is not anyway.  And no need to apologize, I wasn't offended, I just get pretty intense in debate myself. LOL

Tell me about it! Death is another all time favorite of mine, another kick starter that helped evolve thrash into death metal. Venom was pretty big in that too, as was Possessed! You are right though, the riff-based death metal owes it's start to Metallica and Slayer; I'm just happy those who came after built upon the foundation with such creativity!
Back to Top
Guzzman View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 21 2004
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 3563 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guzzman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2011 at 11:48
Nope, absolutely not! (That's my answer to the original question, btw)
"We've got to get in to get out"
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: February 23 2011 at 10:33
Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:

Roger hat; I won't argue with you because, just like almost always on discussion forums, two people do have accurate views but for whatever reason don't see eye to eye and that is fine. You raise excellent points and I apologize for coming off too strong with that last post there. I'm a huge Gorguts fan! Although I agree with you about extreme metal needing a start, Gorguts "Obscura" and "From Wisdom To Hate" is amongst the most un-orthodox metal around. There are others that I am aware of, but Gorguts did indeed innovate their sound after the early 90's. Of course they owe their start to Metallica and Slayer I wasn't trying to argue that; I think a lot of my point got obscured by my intense delivery which is unfortunate.

Not doubting the Beatles paid their dues, just like all great bands. I was just saying that bands whom the media believes will sell best are pushed more than others, which is just simple business. This in turn gets fed to the people who are heavily biased by media and advertising, that's all I was saying. Of course that has no effect on the music, just people's opinions on it to an extent. No hard feelings man!



Just want to clarify that I have heard Obscura and it is one of the most interesting metal releases from the 90s, however remains riff based extreme metal music pioneered by Metallica and Slayer, among others (Napalm Death, Death, Morbid Angel, Bathory, etc).  It is doubtless an innovative release, I don't think I said it is not anyway.  And no need to apologize, I wasn't offended, I just get pretty intense in debate myself. LOL
Back to Top
AllP0werToSlaves View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 29 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 249 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AllP0werToSlaves Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2011 at 01:06
Roger hat; I won't argue with you because, just like almost always on discussion forums, two people do have accurate views but for whatever reason don't see eye to eye and that is fine. You raise excellent points and I apologize for coming off too strong with that last post there. I'm a huge Gorguts fan! Although I agree with you about extreme metal needing a start, Gorguts "Obscura" and "From Wisdom To Hate" is amongst the most un-orthodox metal around. There are others that I am aware of, but Gorguts did indeed innovate their sound after the early 90's. Of course they owe their start to Metallica and Slayer I wasn't trying to argue that; I think a lot of my point got obscured by my intense delivery which is unfortunate.

Not doubting the Beatles paid their dues, just like all great bands. I was just saying that bands whom the media believes will sell best are pushed more than others, which is just simple business. This in turn gets fed to the people who are heavily biased by media and advertising, that's all I was saying. Of course that has no effect on the music, just people's opinions on it to an extent. No hard feelings man!
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: 13109 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Dark Elf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 22 2011 at 21:53
Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

It doesn't matter to me what critics think.  Critics are extraordinarily poor at gauging quality, and also at predicting what will sell.  Critics gave Justin Timberlake's "Justified" album four stars, and then went on to write syrupy, pandering, loathsome reviews which dubbed the Beastie Boys' "To The Five Boroughs" a masterwork.  I could care less what William Mann thinks.  Critics also gave Nirvana's "Nevermind" album three stars out of five when it first arrived, but now they regard it as one of the greatest albums ever recorded.  They are ignorant of musical quality; the bottom line is money and chart hits.  The Beatles had many chart hits and loads of money, so it makes perfect sense that the critics anoint them with bouquets of flowers, as if they were Roman soldiers home from war instead of overrated, peppy, annoying schlock minstrels.

I felt compelled to reply, because this is laughable.
 
I'm not talking about NY critics from Rolling Stone who get hard-ons about Kanye West and give his albums five stars, I referred to classically trained and highly respected music critics from that era,  who would naturally disdain rock music as aberrant noise. They wrote about classical music, and one can't hold a job writing classical criticism with just a GED, a rudimentary knowledge of harmonica, and a close-and-play phonograph. I also quoted Leonard Bernstein, one of the 20th centuries most influential and innovative classical composers. Again, you are merely ranting and not presenting a cogent argument.

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

From a purely historical standpoint, the argument can be made that the Beatles were important to rock music, as artifacts of a unique cultural age.  However, does that necessarily mean that they are still important, innovative, and exciting in the present era?  Over half their catalog suffers from poor mastering, and is hardly listenable.  Their early hits are practically indistinguishable from one another, and are far from memorable.  "Abbey Road" and "Revolver" are hideously mastered, with searing and annoying vocal lines in songs like "Taxman."  "Sargeant Pepper" contains some of the most trite songs I have ever heard in my life, such as "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds," and "When I'm Sixty-Four." 
 
Context, my friend, context. Find some, use it. I would suggest that you listen to their remastered catalog. It has an amazing sonic quality. Or just listen to the album Love which is a phenomenal reworking of Beatles' tunes. As far as their early hits, I suppose you'd rather listen to Pat Boone or Herman's Hermits from the same era. Yeah, great sound and compositional properties. Also, the Rolling Stones spent the entire 60s chasing their tails in anxiety, trying desperately to one-up The Beatles. Their desperation was hilarious.
 
You really prefer the Beach Boys? I'm going to let you in a not-too-secret secret: Brian Wilson had to make Pet Shop Sounds because the Beatles had made his surfing music inconsequential and downright silly. If it weren't for the Beatles, Brian Wilson would have released Surfin' Safari, Part II. In any case, where are The Beach Boys now, playing retirement parties at senior citizen homes? Signing autographs at old car shows? Even after the release of Pet Shop Sounds, they had already become irrelevant. The Beatles buried them.

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

I can't stand "Srgt Pepper."  "Abbey Road" and "The White Album" are the only Beatles works I even have a mild respect for, although the "White Album" is also poorly mastered and "Abbey Road" is highly uneven.  What most irritates me about the Beatles, however, are the vocal melodies.  They are off-putting, dated, and honestly, the Beatles sound like a bunch of dorky guys trying to ingratiate themselves with the more cool, hip individuals surrounding them.  The Beatles are an annoyance, at least from my standpoint. 
 
"I can't stand this, I can't stand that..." What is it with this irrational hatred? Did someone in a Beatles' wig steal your favorite doll, or were you slapped with a Beatles' album by your mum? The Beatles' melodies are dated? Then why have so many bands over the years strived to reach their level?
 
I'm sorry, but your your hyperbole is just short of hysterics, and your rebutals are, for the most part, fallacious. Hate the Beatles, if you wish, but refrain from further debate as you have utterly failed to prove your point. Aside from loudly proclaiming your personal dislikes, you've utterly missed the point of this thread.


Edited by The Dark Elf - February 22 2011 at 21:55
...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
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: February 22 2011 at 20:02
Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

  For starters, although Frank Sinatra was indeed a pop-music performance artist, for most of his career he had a captivating and listenable voice that was the antithesis of peppy "Taxman"-esque Beatles vocalizations.


Firstly, just your opinion and secondly, it is still preposterous to compare a pop performance artist to a band making albums of their own music and making significant innovations in studio craft.

 
Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

You bring up Stevie Wonder; I love his music but I don't consider him a pop artist, more like a soul/R&B musician. 


That way, even the Beatles are rock, bluegrass, blues and not pop.  Pop is simply popular music and Stevie Wonder was a popular artist.

 
Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:


 Also, music critics regularly give the Beatles greater credit than they do for classical musicians.  They may not intend to portray them that way, but in essence they imply that the Beatles are the greatest musicians that ever lived.  When Rolling Stone lists its "Top 500 Greatest Albums Ever,"



It is quite clear to most people that RS lists are compiled for pop/rock music and in any event does not include classical music in its scope.  Now, if you want to react at everything or project anything as Beatles-promotion, go full speed ahead.

 
Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Critics of the modern era are baby boomer-centric, as I stated earlier, insofar as they ignore almost all great work that came before the Beatles.  In this way, I think that the Beatles importance has become conflated beyond reason and logic in our society.          


I don't think so, they just happen to be rock critics so they confine themselves to rock music.  Someone like Miles Davis is obviously outside their scope.  And I haven't seen critics deny the importance of Elvis or Chuck Berry or any of the other important 50s rockers, maybe in your illusory universe.
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: February 22 2011 at 19:55
Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:

 

All of this seems to stem from the absolutist stand point that just because it's a proven fact that they came first, that somehow anchors any and all defensive claims against said band as instantly wrong.


No, no, no, you are just going too fast. Wink

Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:

By this logic, McDonalds is the best fast food chain and their food is of unparalleled quality because they came before Wendy's or Burger King. What's more, even if 9 out of 10 people chose McDonalds and I chose a random local restaurant instead, what does that prove? Did the food those 9 people consumed taste better than my home cooked meal simply because 9 people chose it?


I didn't say consensus is all that matters.  Your argument typically assumes that this is the only thing of merit about popular bands and that is the danger with such thinking. It automatically places unknown bands on a pedestal simply because there's no one to talk them up.  That doesn't necessarily mean their music is better, we should judge the music on its own merits. Secondly, that example does not apply to Beatles or Metallica or Slayer because Mac is more of a business model and has not taken cuisine anywhere in particular. 

 
Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:

Maybe, but it's all opinion anyway. How could one opinion be more valid than the other? McDonalds has more money to promote their product, but that doesn't instantly equate to the highest quality product available.


And lack of promotion doesn't by itself glorify the underground. Let us also not forget that Metallica and Slayer emerged from the same underground. They just moved quicker and rose through the ranks while others were groping in the dark. 

 
Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:

Just because they were first and the biggest doesn't mean they are automatically the best.


I didn't say that however that fact has to be given weightage. You cannot pretend it has no implication at all in the evaluation of a band.  This business of coming first is not just some sprint dash and who manages to put the foot an inch ahead.  It is a very important indicator of innovation. 

 
Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:

Your logic alone proves nothing; I was arguing that it's all subjective and arbitrary in the first place.


That it is not and suppose it is, there is no reason why people like you should get so put off by 'overhyping' of Metallica or Slayer because it's all supposed to be arbitrary anyway. Wink  You can't have it both ways. If you are going to seek defence in completely subjectivity, why should you object to lots of people claiming Metallica as the best thrash metal band, it's just their opinion.

 
Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:

GORGUTS were influenced by Slayer, and they are 1,000 times more creative to me. Who give a sh*t if Slayer came first? 


I am sorry but that IS one of the most important aspects of creativity especially in a defined genre like metal where, once the sound of a sub genre is settled, few bands make significant variations on it in their releases and adhere to the formula.  Gorguts may be more suitable for your taste and that is your choice to make but claiming them to be 1000 times more creative is surely quite exaggerated considering how well entrenched the extreme metal sound was by then.   Creativity does not happen or is not evaluated in a vacuum and going where other bands haven't is a very important aspect of it.   


 
Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:

It's fine that the Beatles/Metallica and Slayer did it first. I'm saying they don't  have a get out of jail free card because of their legacy.


Who said they have to? But you are trying to write off the entire work of Metallica and Slayer purely on account of their recent releases which is not very thoughtful. 


 
Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:

You are correct historically those bands were the ones, but that doesn't negate the fact that heavy promotion of an image geared toward mass consumption played a HUGE part in all of it. THE MEDIA gives you want they want you to buy, more accurately what they THINK you should want to buy right now; they hitch on to fads and themes that are hot sells. Look at any generation of music and it's no wonder why Metallica and Slayer were at the head of the pack; drunk middle America demands sub-par music. The publics perception of the music industry and how it actually works is severely flawed.


Bulls**t argument.  They just got around to playing something everybody else wanted to play.  If the music shaped by Metallica and Slayer is so sub par, why do Gorguts, who you extol so highly (a band that I also like, while we are on that), play extreme metal?  Why can't they innovate and reject the format?   Your argument, to repeat, also ignores that all these bands emerged from the same tiny clubs that the rest of the underground were struggling in.  Many well known musicians in thrash metal used to attend Metallica's concerts even before Kill em All was released.  You cannot use their current big band status to negate all of THAT. Yes, they have been making crappy albums for two decades now but that cannot be used to negate all their influence on metal as a falsehood (which is what Barking Weasel is doing w.r.t Beatles) or claim that influence or innovation are unimportant.  If no artist was interested in innovation, and everybody played the same old, same old over and over for scores together, perhaps then you'd appreciate the importance of a Beatles or Metallica. It's a very comfortable stance to play what everyone else is playing and play it better but it takes a lot to challenge the status quo and influence other musicians to pursue a new direction.  Regardless of how ridiculous Metallica may have become now, in the early 80s they had the guts to take metal to the next level and it's only a handful of metal bands about which you can say that.  Particularly in a conservative genre like metal which doesn't change easily, every band that dared deserves rich praise.  


 
Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:

The only FACT is that these huge bands had infinitely more funding from major labels than their bar-playing cousins. 


But that was only AFTER they graduated out of the same bars.  I would not deny that luck also plays a part in handing some bands the break that others don't get but it's delusional to claim luck is all there is to it.  In the early 1980s, few bands were playing as tight thrash metal as Metallica or Slayer.  Everybody then caught on to the bandwagon including those bar-playing cousins for whom your heart seems to bleed.


Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:

Why did they get more money? Because promoters and labels saw a market for the sound AT THAT POINT IN TIME and capitalized; it has very little to do with John Lennon playing his guitar with no shoes on sitting on the floor being poetic. 


Once again, all this was AFTER they had paid their dues, after they had worked their way up and released commercially successful albums.  Also, Beatles actually changed for the better in the second half of their successful career where I have seen so many prog and metal bands with more 'integrity' sell out once they smelled the scent of commercial success.  Face it, you are reacting to the hype and not giving Beatles a judicious evaluation. 


Originally posted by AllP0werToSlaves AllP0werToSlaves wrote:



At the end of the day YOUR opinion IS just as valid as MY opinion; it changes absolutely nothing about the music that has already been. All we can do is share view points on the matter respectfully. This goes back to perception of music and media being based on what you are told is the best, innovative, etc. Toting the Beatles around like they are empirically proven to be the best band ever while  shooting down claims that oppose this stand shows ignorance to the power that marketing has on influencing mass opinion.


The discussion was about whether they get too much credit for their role in shaping rock music, NOT about whether they are the best band ever.  I am sure Beatles-haters don't see much difference between the two topics but this discussion is restricted to their importance in rock music so right now you are only coming across as desperately wanting to deny their importance in music or pretend that importance itself is irrelevant.  You can't also hyphenate best and innovative the way you are above, they are obviously very different.
Back to Top
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote harmonium.ro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 22 2011 at 17:17
Yeah, I definitely think that Battles are not given enough credit!

Oh wait...
Back to Top
chopper View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 22 2011 at 16:59
Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:



Pet Sounds is great yes, but which album spurred Wilson on to make such a great album? And who was it by?


"Rubber Soul" isn't half the album that "Pet Sounds" is, though.  Its influence on "Pet Sounds" is undisputed, yet it does not achieve the same high quality, and as far as production is concerned, it remains dismal.  A similar example: "Sargeant Pepper" was influenced by Frank Zappa's "Freak Out," yet that F.Z. debut suffers from substandard recording quality, and has aged poorly.  As other posters have noted, the "first" is not necessarily the best. 


I agree, Pet Sounds is a better album than Rubber Soul but then I would argue that Revolver is better than Pet Sounds.

I've never read anything that suggests Sgt Pepper was influenced by Zappa and Freak Out (and I have read most books on The Beatles worth reading) but you may well be right.
[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, I disagree, in that I think "Revolver" is the MOST overrated Beatles album.  I strongly dislike "Taxman," and the other songs do not improve my perception of the album.  It sounds like a victim of bad mastering, and there are very few truly memorable singles on it.  "Yellow Submarine" is a children's song, and stands alongside "Octopus' Garden" as one of the Beatles' more derivative moments.
[/QUOTE]
We'll have to agree to differ there. My parting shot to this thread is that if you asked 100 prog musicians who was the greatest/most influential band of all time, I would bet a large amount of cash on the outcome.
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: February 22 2011 at 15:43
Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:



Pet Sounds is great yes, but which album spurred Wilson on to make such a great album? And who was it by?


"Rubber Soul" isn't half the album that "Pet Sounds" is, though.  Its influence on "Pet Sounds" is undisputed, yet it does not achieve the same high quality, and as far as production is concerned, it remains dismal.  A similar example: "Sargeant Pepper" was influenced by Frank Zappa's "Freak Out," yet that F.Z. debut suffers from substandard recording quality, and has aged poorly.  As other posters have noted, the "first" is not necessarily the best. 
[/QUOTE]

I agree, Pet Sounds is a better album than Rubber Soul but then I would argue that Revolver is better than Pet Sounds.

I've never read anything that suggests Sgt Pepper was influenced by Zappa and Freak Out (and I have read most books on The Beatles worth reading) but you may well be right.
[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, I disagree, in that I think "Revolver" is the MOST overrated Beatles album.  I strongly dislike "Taxman," and the other songs do not improve my perception of the album.  It sounds like a victim of bad mastering, and there are very few truly memorable singles on it.  "Yellow Submarine" is a children's song, and stands alongside "Octopus' Garden" as one of the Beatles' more derivative moments.
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: February 22 2011 at 15:32
Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

^ I would argue that the Animals singles have aged more gracefully than those of the Beatles.  

please don't try to assert such utter nonsense about the Beatles being the greatest band that has ever lived.  



Can you really listen to "House of the Rising Sun" and tell me that sounds any less dated than anything The Beatles were doing at the time?

OK, tell us who deserves the accolade of "the greatest band who ever lived" (and I'm talking from the pop era onwards here).


The Beatles early hits are incredibly scruffy-sounding to my ears, while "House Of The Rising Sun" minimizes such blatant tape hiss.  I do not think that there really is a greatest band, at least not yet.  The problem is, loads of bands have careers filled with mixed efforts.  For a group to be considered the "very best," they should have high quality work on every album.  I would choose Genesis, except they changed lineups and sacrificed their creative potential in the 80's and 90's.  Or Frank Zappa, although I don't like his 60's output.  Rush is another favorite of mine, and is essentially my version of the Beatles in terms of how I respond to their music.  However, some of their later work is substandard.

For the 60's era, I think Bob Dylan is far more important in the long-term perspective than the Beatles.  I am not a fan of his entire catalog, but his songs are some of the most historically influential works ever recorded.  I also love Simon and Garfunkel/Stevie Wonder's work, so no objections if they are number one either.  Muddy Waters, Louis Armstrong, and Woody Guthrie would also be deserving of such recognition.  There are too many great artists and musicians for me to recommend, but if we were to hypothetically agree that "Pet Sounds" is the best (i.e. most influential) vocal pop album ever recorded from the 60's onwards, I would have no major objections with that selection.  However, there is most likely an awesome band out there that I don't know about, so I'll have to reserve judgment until I hear more music.  
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Padraic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 22 2011 at 15:04
Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

 
I've never read anything that suggests Sgt Pepper was influenced by Zappa and Freak Out (and I have read most books on The Beatles worth reading) but you may well be right.


In there it claims Paul said Freak Out "influenced Sgt. Pepper considerably".
Back to Top
chopper View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 22 2011 at 15:01
Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:



Pet Sounds is great yes, but which album spurred Wilson on to make such a great album? And who was it by?
[/QUOTE]

"Rubber Soul" isn't half the album that "Pet Sounds" is, though.  Its influence on "Pet Sounds" is undisputed, yet it does not achieve the same high quality, and as far as production is concerned, it remains dismal.  A similar example: "Sargeant Pepper" was influenced by Frank Zappa's "Freak Out," yet that F.Z. debut suffers from substandard recording quality, and has aged poorly.  As other posters have noted, the "first" is not necessarily the best. 
[/QUOTE]

I agree, Pet Sounds is a better album than Rubber Soul but then I would argue that Revolver is better than Pet Sounds.

I've never read anything that suggests Sgt Pepper was influenced by Zappa and Freak Out (and I have read most books on The Beatles worth reading) but you may well be right.
Back to Top
chopper View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 22 2011 at 14:58
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I've heard the Beatles credited for inventing/ developing tape-loop techniques that were being used by musique concrete composers before them.  It doesn\t surprise me due to pop status, but it does irk me that the Beatles get as much credit as they do for being inventive, and for being modern music geniuses, while the likes of Stockhausen and Xenakis more rarely seem to get mention. The Beatles were lucky to have people such as George Martin  working with them. 


Yes good points. For all the nonsense in this thread, I will accept that George Martin had a huge part in the development of The Beatles from their pop origins. Without his classical knowledge (and the skill of the Abbey Road engineers) most of their ideas may not have been put into practice.
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: February 22 2011 at 14:57

[/QUOTE]
Pet Sounds is great yes, but which album spurred Wilson on to make such a great album? And who was it by?
[/QUOTE]

"Rubber Soul" isn't half the album that "Pet Sounds" is, though.  Its influence on "Pet Sounds" is undisputed, yet it does not achieve the same high quality, and as far as production is concerned, it remains dismal.  A similar example: "Sargeant Pepper" was influenced by Frank Zappa's "Freak Out," yet that F.Z. debut suffers from substandard recording quality, and has aged poorly.  As other posters have noted, the "first" is not necessarily the best. 
Back to Top
chopper View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 22 2011 at 14:51
Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

^ I would argue that the Animals singles have aged more gracefully than those of the Beatles.  

please don't try to assert such utter nonsense about the Beatles being the greatest band that has ever lived.  



Can you really listen to "House of the Rising Sun" and tell me that sounds any less dated than anything The Beatles were doing at the time?

OK, tell us who deserves the accolade of "the greatest band who ever lived" (and I'm talking from the pop era onwards here).
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2021222324 28>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.197 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.