thellama73 wrote: 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?

Boy, that's what you call optimism. And clutching at straws. I imagine in a general music forum which isn't as narrow in definition as 'Prog' the chasm would be even greater. The problem here is that a lot of the negative pollsters are seeing/hearing things from where we are now, not from where we've come. That's why they completely miss the point.

Oh noes   - the Beat-Less writed "Roll Over Beethoven" ... Damn that Chuckles Berry for recording it a year before Lemon and McCarthy even meeted.

The Beatles never had the nerve to call themselves "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band". Honestly, the Stones have been feeding the media with that mentality for the last 40 years. I love the Stones but I feel there is a tremendous level of nostalgia surrounding those glory years (68-74/75).... "ah the Mick Taylor era! Now that was a great era."

I've listened to concerts from '73 and they just are smoking good. While they are clearly a minor image of what they used to be, those old chaps can still play. Yet this emphasis on being the greatest rock and roll band continues; if anything I have a greater problem with this self proclaimed greatness and the  media's subsequent infatuation with the moniker than the Beatles just getting credit when credit is deserved (personally I feel the Stones would have gotten the credit they deserved, albeit not on such a significant level).

Now the argument that the Beatles packed it up because they were behind the times, that their ingenuity had run dry, that other bands had surpassed them, etc. etc. ignores a few important facts. Their last album, Abbey Road, came out in late '69; if they had really run out of ideas, how can one explain the Medley on the second side of that album? It was really ingenious to put half a dozen shorter pieces together and create a seamless long track (really before it became an in thing for prog bands to compose and lengthen their pieces to 15-20 min).  Abbey Road sounds considerably modern to my ears, it could have been recorded yesterday. For all these other bands that were "so much better", I'll be honest their recordings often times don't hold up as well.

The band broke up as do many bands: it became dysfunctional. And to think such a fantastic album, often considered the groups best, came about in a period of such disharmony and conflict is an indication of their due reputation. For being out of ideas, these fellows sure put out some fantastic albums in the aftermath of the breakup (Plastic Ono Band, McCartney, and the triple album All Things Must Pass).



Edited by mr.cub - April 22 2011 at 13:32

Catcher10 wrote: giselle wrote: Boy, that's what you call optimism. And clutching at straws. I imagine in a general music forum which isn't as narrow in definition as 'Prog' the chasm would be even greater. The problem here is that a lot of the negative pollsters are seeing/hearing things from where we are now, not from where we've come. That's why they completely miss the point.   Well, if you want the spread to be more then I suggest you post the same poll on another forum. There are probably 1,000's of general pop music forums where the Beatles are revered as GODS.

I don't want the spread to be more, I want it to be whatever it is. The truth is the truth is the truth. And that truth shows even here. I was just pointing out that a sample of generally esoteric-based proggers isn't representative of the music population. I wasn't and am not any kind of Beatles fan or fanatic, but let's face it, in musical terms the Beatles SHOULD be revered. It's not about where the Beatles stand now in relation to where we are. It's about how we got here in the first place.

Logan wrote: giselle wrote: Catcher10 wrote: giselle wrote: Boy, that's what you call optimism. And clutching at straws. I imagine in a general music forum which isn't as narrow in definition as 'Prog' the chasm would be even greater. The problem here is that a lot of the negative pollsters are seeing/hearing things from where we are now, not from where we've come. That's why they completely miss the point.   Well, if you want the spread to be more then I suggest you post the same poll on another forum. There are probably 1,000's of general pop music forums where the Beatles are revered as GODS.   I don't want the spread to be more, I want it to be whatever it is. The truth is the truth is the truth. And that truth shows even here. I was just pointing out that a sample of generally esoteric-based proggers isn't representative of the music population. I wasn't and am not any kind of Beatles fan or fanatic, but let's face it, in musical terms the Beatles SHOULD be revered. It's not about where the Beatles stand now in relation to where we are. It's about how we got here in the first place. But -- again this topic focuses on claims of and credit for musical origination and innovation which I mention just in case some people forget -- does that reverence cloud quite a few people's judgment when it comes to what they think the Beatles invented. As I've said, I've heard people claim that the Beatles invented techniques already in use  by musique concrete composers.  I've read or heard many people who have claimed that the Beatles invented rock and rock and roll.  I have read or heard over the years that the Beatles invented heavy metal, psychadelic music, Indo Prog/ Raga Rock, were the first Western musicians to incorporate Indian elements, folk-rock, Prog, and even that they invented pop music. The question for one might be, can that be considered commonplace enough to vote yes in the poll, or are innacurate claims to musical greatness when it comes to the Beatles innovation and orignation of styles/ modalities/ idioms and techniques are really uncommon amongst those who make claims about the Beatles. I do not revere the Beatles or any band, but I voted yes because in my perception and experience, I have heard too many claims by too many people of musical greatness in terms of invention and innovation that I do not believe accurate.  That some seem to think that those who share a similar outlook as me obviously wrong, and perhaps stupid as well, surprises me. EDIT By the way, I never give polls much heed -- it''s just an accessory to the discussion.  I very much expect that various  people have voted without specifically pondering/ considering the question I posed in the opening post.  I thought the way I handled it would give latitude, though, so that people could vote either way depending upon their approach to the topic.

You say you never give polls much heed, yet it was you who raised that point about the poll result. But I think you make a fair point about the scope of innovation and techniques in music across the board. You're also right about people wrongly claiming that rock and roll didn't really exist  before the Beatles. It has has been said already many times in many ways, popular music as it is today would not exist at all but for the Beatles, but perhaps the point you were trying to make is wider in scope than thus far suggested? Maybe to avoid being hijacked by the generalities seen so far, the question for discussion needed to be framed in a more specific way? Your last paragraph here seems to suggest a clearer path for debate.

giselle wrote: Logan wrote: giselle wrote: Catcher10 wrote: giselle wrote: Boy, that's what you call optimism. And clutching at straws. I imagine in a general music forum which isn't as narrow in definition as 'Prog' the chasm would be even greater. The problem here is that a lot of the negative pollsters are seeing/hearing things from where we are now, not from where we've come. That's why they completely miss the point.   Well, if you want the spread to be more then I suggest you post the same poll on another forum. There are probably 1,000's of general pop music forums where the Beatles are revered as GODS.   I don't want the spread to be more, I want it to be whatever it is. The truth is the truth is the truth. And that truth shows even here. I was just pointing out that a sample of generally esoteric-based proggers isn't representative of the music population. I wasn't and am not any kind of Beatles fan or fanatic, but let's face it, in musical terms the Beatles SHOULD be revered. It's not about where the Beatles stand now in relation to where we are. It's about how we got here in the first place. But -- again this topic focuses on claims of and credit for musical origination and innovation which I mention just in case some people forget -- does that reverence cloud quite a few people's judgment when it comes to what they think the Beatles invented. As I've said, I've heard people claim that the Beatles invented techniques already in use  by musique concrete composers.  I've read or heard many people who have claimed that the Beatles invented rock and rock and roll.  I have read or heard over the years that the Beatles invented heavy metal, psychadelic music, Indo Prog/ Raga Rock, were the first Western musicians to incorporate Indian elements, folk-rock, Prog, and even that they invented pop music. The question for one might be, can that be considered commonplace enough to vote yes in the poll, or are innacurate claims to musical greatness when it comes to the Beatles innovation and orignation of styles/ modalities/ idioms and techniques are really uncommon amongst those who make claims about the Beatles. I do not revere the Beatles or any band, but I voted yes because in my perception and experience, I have heard too many claims by too many people of musical greatness in terms of invention and innovation that I do not believe accurate.  That some seem to think that those who share a similar outlook as me obviously wrong, and perhaps stupid as well, surprises me. EDIT By the way, I never give polls much heed -- it''s just an accessory to the discussion.  I very much expect that various  people have voted without specifically pondering/ considering the question I posed in the opening post.  I thought the way I handled it would give latitude, though, so that people could vote either way depending upon their approach to the topic. ...I think you make a fair point about the scope of innovation and techniques in music across the board. You're also right about people wrongly claiming that rock and roll didn't really exist  before the Beatles. It has has been said already many times in many ways, popular music as it is today would not exist at all but for the Beatles, but perhaps the point you were trying to make is wider in scope than thus far suggested? Maybe to avoid being hijacked by the generalities seen so far, the question for discussion needed to be framed in a more specific way? Your last paragraph here seems to suggest a clearer path for debate.

I didn't want to frame it too rigorously off the bat in my initial postt because I felt then that there wouldn'be as much room for different tacts and any vibrant discussion.  I had to frame it in such a way that there will be variance depending upon how the question of credit when it comes to orignation and innovation is approached.  I would expect people to be able to think flexibly and in a balanced manner, and to recognise varyingly valid perpectives and ways to approach the question of the Beatles invention and innovation.  I did think I made my intentions quite clear in early  posts of mine in the thread, though as I did elaborate on my feelings and focus.  


Edited by Logan - April 22 2011 at 16:02

jean-marie wrote: The white album is a fantastic album because each member in the band can do his own experience and it gave birth to a flaming pop album but it's not the whole Beatles world , listen to Abbey road, Rubber soul , Revolver, Sergent Pepper's and in fact the whole Beatles collection, how old where you at the times? ,it can explain why you don't manage to understand or feel how much important were the Beatles for a froggy french teen as i was

1) I have heard all of those albums, and as to the claims made about "Revolver" being a highly experimental album, I don't hear it that way at all.  That record sounds to me like one of the more generic Beatles releases, next to "Let It Be."  It mostly contains straightforward pop songs like "Taxman" and "Yellow Submarine."  I can understand some of the "experimental" claims about Sergeant Pepper, in that it was a conceptual album that utilized sitar on "Within You, Without You."  However, the songs on that album do not sound experimental in the way I mentioned earlier; for example, "The White Album" has "Revolution #9," which is even more far-out and weird sounding than Pink Floyd's "Astronomy Domine."  I think that my earlier point still holds water; the Beatles are touted as being highly experimental, but when compared to artists who were actually more psychedelic and experimental at the time, the Beatles were mostly quite vanilla in their song-structure.

2) I will freely admit that I was not alive back then.  I am speaking from a post-Beatles era.  I choose to view this as an asset to the discussion; not having experienced the Beatlemania of the 60's and 70's, I can give a more unbiased view of the actual quality of their music that is untinted by the cultural sensationalism of that era.  While this view is definitely a product of my own tastes and upbringing, it is still a valid perspective.

3)  As far as the quality of their music without vocals, the Beatles were capable of excellence, and often delivered it.  However, there are two main problems that I have with the Beatles when I listen to them.  Firstly, the production on their albums is sorely lacking.  Specifically, "Rubber Soul," "Revolver," and "The White Album" sound like they have been badly mastered.  This shocks me, because I keep hearing about how the Beatles used state-of-the-art equipment that no one else was using.  You wouldn't know it by listening to "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver," which are two of the most atrocious-sounding albums I have ever heard based solely on mastering.  I will listen to the newly remastered albums to see if I can hear anything change in the sound of those albums.  "Sergeant Pepper" and especially "Abbey Road" sound decent.  Secondly, I cannot stand the vocal harmonies or even the solo vocal performances on the Beatles songs.  This interferes with my ability to appreciate the recordings, since the vocals are an integral aspect of the Beatles music.  The real miracle of the Beatles is how they managed to obtain vocalists who embody everything that I can't stand in singing, in one place.  Interestingly, I find Ringo Starr to be the most listenable of the bunch.  If that doesn't tar and feather me as a Beatles heretic, I don't know what else could do it.

4)  I don't want to detract from your musical experience, so I'll compromise by saying that the Beatles were highly influential, and incorporated distinct flourishes into their music (which set them apart from most other artists).  However, I don't think that they deserve all the credit they get for "inventing" the landscape of rock music, as we know it today.  The seeds for this were already sown in the 50's and early 60's, before the Beatles became hitmakers.  Bill Haley's "Rock Around The Clock" was the first innovative song that could be classified as "rock."  Following that, Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry took it further into the mainstream.  Speaking of Buddy Holly, I always get the sense that the Beatles were directly emulating his vocal style in their songs.  Perhaps this is a "no-duh" moment on my part.  However, I don't really like Holly's cutesy brand of singing.  This must predispose me to not liking the Beatles, in that I think they sound eerily similar to Holly when vocalizing.

5)  Overall, the Beatles don't cut the mustard for me.  But more than that, I think that a lot of what they are built up to be is a sham.  Everything that the Beatles represent, I find distasteful.  The marketing, the contrived music, the druggy/hippie pretense, the matching haircuts and outfits, the dead-baby cover on one of their albums, the movies, the outright commercialism, and the cloying effluent of "Yellow Submarine."  So in regards to the original question by the OP, I will always overwhelmingly affirm that yes, the Beatles are an overrated band that get too much credit for defining the music industry, and not enough critical analysis for their actual role in sabotaging that industry with their tasteless, crass brand of circus music as heard on "Magical Mystery Tour."

6) Come to think of it, if you factor in the abysmal state of the modern recording industry, perhaps I was wrong all along.  The Beatles deserve ALL of the credit they get...just look at the modern USA, and our so-called "music industry" with its focus on image, posturing, and marketing in the guise of Kei$ha and Eminem.  That could very well be the Beatles legacy right there, in a nutshell.  If you Beatles fans would like me to give the Beatles credit for the music industry of today as it stands...toxic and broken...then by all means, take it!                 

Barking Weasel wrote:   Speaking of Buddy Holly, I always get the sense that the Beatles were directly emulating his vocal style in their songs.  Perhaps this is a "no-duh" moment on my part.  However, I don't really like Holly's cutesy brand of singing.  This must predispose me to not liking the Beatles, in that I think they sound eerily similar to Holly when vocalizing.

Don't see it myself. MacCartney's vocal style was too melodic to be a Holly immitation (there is a YouTube clip of him singing Peggy Sue and it's not even close to Holly in style, or even phrasing) and Lennon's singing style was too Dylan influenced working class hero, even when he did cover Peggy Sue, it was more like Gene Vincent than Buddy Holly. For a Brit clearly emulating Holly you would have to look to Adam Faith, and the Beatles sound nothing like Adam Faith.

Dean wrote: Barking Weasel wrote:   Speaking of Buddy Holly, I always get the sense that the Beatles were directly emulating his vocal style in their songs.  Perhaps this is a "no-duh" moment on my part.  However, I don't really like Holly's cutesy brand of singing.  This must predispose me to not liking the Beatles, in that I think they sound eerily similar to Holly when vocalizing. Don't see it myself. MacCartney's vocal style was too melodic to be a Holly immitation (there is a YouTube clip of him singing Peggy Sue and it's not even close to Holly in style, or even phrasing) and Lennon's singing style was too Dylan influenced working class hero, even when he did cover Peggy Sue, it was more like Gene Vincent than Buddy Holly. For a Brit clearly emulating Holly you would have to look to Adam Faith, and the Beatles sound nothing like Adam Faith.

Interesting...while Buddy Holly sang in a slightly twangy and inflected manner without accent, the Beatles were obviously very British in the way they sang, and more cosmopolitan than Holly.  The only real difference I hear is in the Beatles affected English accents; when they sing, it sounds so obviously British and so distinctive that I could never mistake their singing for anything other than Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Starr.  The other day on the radio, a Beatles song came on and I did not know what it was called, but I knew it was the Beatles because their vocals are so distinct, especially those of McCartney and Lennon.  This is very similar to Buddy Holly, in that I couldn't mistake him for anyone else if I tried.  My point was not that they sound exactly alike vocal-wise (which I could have done a better job of emphasizing in my earlier post), but rather that the Beatles were so obviously influenced by Holly as a singer that they emulated his style in a way that a listener with rudimentary knowledge of Holly's singing (which I possess) could discern if they chose to connect the dots.  If you had not mentioned it, I would never have known that the Beatles did covers of Holly singles; it doesn't surprise me, I just wasn't aware of it until now because I'm not a fan, and I don't care about minute details that pertain to bands that I am not that interested in.  However, by simply listening to the Beatles I can trace the origins of their vocal sound (especially when they harmonize on songs like "She Loves You") to Holly.  Their style is pure Holly through and through, filtered through the lens of British accents and harmonized distortion of voices that occur when they sing together all at once.  


Edited by Barking Weasel - April 22 2011 at 23:05