| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
chopper 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: April 20 2011 at 07:22 |
 mr.cub wrote:
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
|
That's more or less what I wanted to say but I'm loath to encourage him further. Did he really say the Beatles quit playing live because they're lousy musicians?
|
 |
rematpac
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 26 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 123
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 08:33 |
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.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 08:41 |
^ 
|
|
|
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13063
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 08:43 |
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.
We are by now all aware that you absolutely loathe The Beatles with a hate that seems inordinate to the subject. Fine, that's your prerogative. But when you continue to post distorted and inflammatory commentary over and over, don't suddenly cry foul and pretend to be the sacrificial lamb of enlightened criticism.
|
|
...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...
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 10:45 |
rematpac wrote:
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. |
 There is so much wrong with that post that I can't be bothered to argue with it. I assume it's not serious.
|
|
giselle
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 18 2011
Location: Hertford
Status: Offline
Points: 466
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 17:21 |
rematpac wrote:
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. |
Yes, this is such a seriously distorted view, and by someone who wouldn't even be able to post anything at all if it wasn't for the most influential group in music history. But if you really are that blind, you will never see.
|
|
davidk
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 17 2011
Location: USA - English
Status: Offline
Points: 69
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 17:28 |
rematpac wrote:
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. |
Pretty much every single band you mentioned as better than The Beatles have admitted to being influenced by The Beatles. So if they were so much crap then where did all this influence come from? Do you really think King Crimson was influenced by such a sh*tty band, and same with the Moody's and have no problem admitting to be influenced by a band if they were as sh*tty as you say The Beatles were. They tried a lot of experimentation. Every band you have mentioned made their first album AFTER The Beatles started to experiment with quite a few.
|
|
jean-marie
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 27 2010
Location: FRANCE
Status: Offline
Points: 2585
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 17:44 |
davidk wrote:
rematpac wrote:
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. |
Pretty much every single band you mentioned as better than The Beatles have admitted to being influenced by The Beatles. So if they were so much crap then where did all this influence come from? Do you really think King Crimson was influenced by such a sh*tty band, and same with the Moody's and have no problem admitting to be influenced by a band if they were as sh*tty as you say The Beatles were. They tried a lot of experimentation. Every band you have mentioned made their first album AFTER The Beatles started to experiment with quite a few. |
You know what ? I'M TIRED OF READING ALL THAT THE BEATLES GAVES ME SO MUCH HAPPINESS AND DREAMINGS LISTENING TO THEIR MUSIC so SHUT UP and talk about what you love 
Edited by jean-marie - April 20 2011 at 17:46
|
|
davidk
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 17 2011
Location: USA - English
Status: Offline
Points: 69
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 17:45 |
jean-marie wrote:
davidk wrote:
rematpac wrote:
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. |
Pretty much every single band you mentioned as better than The Beatles have admitted to being influenced by The Beatles. So if they were so much crap then where did all this influence come from? Do you really think King Crimson was influenced by such a sh*tty band, and same with the Moody's and have no problem admitting to be influenced by a band if they were as sh*tty as you say The Beatles were. They tried a lot of experimentation. Every band you have mentioned made their first album AFTER The Beatles started to experiment with quite a few. |
You know what I'M TIRED OF READING ALL THAT? THE BEATLES GAVES ME SO MUCH HAPPINESS AND DREAMINGS LISTENING TO THEIR MUSIC so SHUT UP and talk about what you love |
I love The Beatles also, but I am pretty sure what you said was directed to the person I responded too and not me.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 17:59 |
|
The Beatles mastered pop songs to a degree that no band or artist has ever done. A lot of previous 50s rock and rollers made a career off one or two songs similar in style to "I Want to Hold Your Hand." That's fine. The Beatles did it 20+ times and went experimental to boot. Not only that, but to me at least the songs have longevity and not just novelty. I can even listen to "She Loves You" and the early stuff without feeling like I'm stabbing by brain with 12-bar nothingness.
Edited by stonebeard - April 20 2011 at 18:05
|
|
|
|
jean-marie
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 27 2010
Location: FRANCE
Status: Offline
Points: 2585
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 18:08 |
stonebeard wrote:
The Beatles mastered pop songs to a degree that no band or artist has ever done. A lot of previous 50s rock and rollers made a career off one or two songs similar in style to "I Want to Hold Your Hand." That's fine. The Beatles did it 20+ times and went experimental to boot. Not only that, but to me at least the songs have longevity and not just novelty. I can even listen to "She Loves You" and the early stuff without feeling like I'm stabbing by brain with 12-bar nothingness.
|
is it over?
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35884
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 18:33 |
jean-marie wrote:
definitively no!!! the beatles deserve what they got, they're great close this stupid topic |
Sorry, why should I close this topic? I think that would be disrespectful to everyone who actually made an effort to answer the question, ("do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination?") and took the time to get involved in the discussion. And, by the way, one can think the Beatles great, yet still think that the Beatles are quite commonly given more credit than they deserve in terms of invention. Of course some don't give enough credit. If you think the topic stupid, feel free to ignore it and dazzle us with your brilliant topics at PA. EDIT: Incidentally, I just saw your post earlier today for the first time, and when my seven year old daughter read it, she said "Ï disagree, someone should close this stupid user."
Edited by Logan - April 20 2011 at 18:41
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 18:38 |
stonebeard wrote:
The Beatles mastered pop songs to a degree that no band or artist has ever done. A lot of previous 50s rock and rollers made a career off one or two songs similar in style to "I Want to Hold Your Hand." That's fine. The Beatles did it 20+ times and went experimental to boot. Not only that, but to me at least the songs have longevity and not just novelty. I can even listen to "She Loves You" and the early stuff without feeling like I'm stabbing by brain with 12-bar nothingness.
|
One odd thing about many of the Beatles songs (even the simple and apparently straightforward ones) is that the backing music requires the sung melody line for the whole song to be tuneful and vice versa - seperate them and there are unresolved notes that "hang" and sound off-key. I don't believe these were necessarily deliberate, just a product of how they wrote songs, singing along with a guitar.
Edited by Dean - April 20 2011 at 18:39
|
|
What?
|
|
jean-marie
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 27 2010
Location: FRANCE
Status: Offline
Points: 2585
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 18:44 |
Logan wrote:
jean-marie wrote:
definitively no!!! the beatles deserve what they got, they're great close this stupid topic |
Sorry, why should I close this topic? I think that would be disrespectful to everyone who actually made an effort to answer the question, ("do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination?") and took the time to get involved in the discussion.
And, by the way, one can think the Beatles great, yet still think that the Beatles are quite commonly given more credit than they deserve in terms of invention. Of course some don't give enough credit.
If you think the topic stupid, feel free to ignore it and dazzle us with your brilliant topics at PA. oh so you got paid attention to my sentence? i quite forgot it , nevermind, yes you're right i'm a stupid guy, and my polls all are stupid and i will not pay more attention to your poll, i'm sorry  GOODBYE !
, |
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 18:51 |
And another for I Want to Hold Your Hand, showing again that its not quite a straightforward 12-bar pop song: www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/iwthyh.shtml
|
|
What?
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35884
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 18:55 |
jean-marie wrote:
Logan wrote:
jean-marie wrote:
definitively no!!! the beatles deserve what they got, they're great close this stupid topic |
Sorry, why should I close this topic? I think that would be disrespectful to everyone who actually made an effort to answer the question, ("do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination?") and took the time to get involved in the discussion.
And, by the way, one can think the Beatles great, yet still think that the Beatles are quite commonly given more credit than they deserve in terms of invention. Of course some don't give enough credit.
If you think the topic stupid, feel free to ignore it and dazzle us with your brilliant topics at PA. oh so you got paid attention to my sentence? i quite forgot it , nevermind, yes you're right i'm a stupid guy, and my polls all are stupid and i will not pay more attention to your poll, i'm sorry GOODBYE !
, |
|
I'm not saying you're stupid, I don't know you, but I think that instead of complaining about other's stupidity (or stupid writing/ ideas/ topics) it is better to concentrate on writing intelligent/ thoughtful things oneself. If I think someone writes something stupid (or a topic really inane, but not in a fun way), I generally do not respond. I respond for discussion purposes, and hoping to learn things, or humour sometimes. Idiots are not good discussion partners, I find. I was in Mexico, and have only read your post today. Whether you think the subject stupid or not, you're entitled to your opinion on that, what I really want to know is why you requested that the poll be closed? I can close it, but need just cause. I would like to hear your thoughts on the question (I genuinely am interested in what people have to say), and do not wish to exclude anyone from the discussion. I just hope that people are respectful towards eachother when discussing/ debating/ chatting.
Edited by Logan - April 20 2011 at 19:06
|
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13063
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 20:33 |
davidk wrote:
rematpac wrote:
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.....AND BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....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...ET CETERA, AD NAUSEAM... |
Pretty much every single band you mentioned as better than The Beatles have admitted to being influenced by The Beatles. So if they were so much crap then where did all this influence come from? Do you really think King Crimson was influenced by such a sh*tty band, and same with the Moody's and have no problem admitting to be influenced by a band if they were as sh*tty as you say The Beatles were. They tried a lot of experimentation. Every band you have mentioned made their first album AFTER The Beatles started to experiment with quite a few. |
You're right, David. What Mr. Cramped Quotes fails to understand is that when he mentions Cream, for instance, Eric Clapton played on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and Harrison returned the favor, co-writing the song "Badge" on Creem's final album. Likewise, Hendrix loved The Beatles and played "Sgt Peppers" and "Day Tripper" in different concerts. The implications the poster makes are as silly as they are illegible. Here's a comprehensive list of bands and performers who covered Beatles' tunes. The list goes on for 20 or so pages and includes everyone from Rick Wakeman to XTC to Neil Young to Frank Zappa (at least in W,X,Y & Z!) :
Why would so many artists play Beatles' songs if they didn't find them influential?
|
|
...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...
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35884
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 22:41 |
|
There is no need to resort to name-calling. I ask people to be civil with each other, or I will, after all, follow Jean-Marie's request and "close this stupid topic". Thank you.
|
|
colorofmoney91
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 23:27 |
Dey wuz AIIGHT.
But seriously, they were good, but very much overrated.
A. Schoenberg was around way before the Beatles, and his music helped along modern music as we know much more than the Beatles. And does VH1 talk about Schoenberg every day, on every weird countdown? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April 20 2011 at 23:32 |
colorofmoney91 wrote:
Dey wuz AIIGHT.
But seriously, they were good, but very much overrated.
A. Schoenberg was around way before the Beatles, and his music helped along modern music as we know much more than the Beatles. And does VH1 talk about Schoenberg every day, on every weird countdown? I don't think so. |
How do you figure? Serialism died out very quickly, and you won't find any of it in modern popular music. What's the last atonal song that made the billboard charts?
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
