Do the Beatles get too much credit..

Barking Weasel wrote: Frank Zappa deserves far more credit than the Beatles...he was more influential on 20th century music as a whole not just because of the fact that his early albums directly influenced the Beatles, but because he paved the way for innovative quality and exceptional showmanship in modern music.  With a revolving cast of excellent musicians like Aynsley Dunbar, Vinnie Coliuata, Steve Vai (err..ok, maybe not all that great...), and others, his legacy is truly a foundation of rock music.  The Beatles couldn't function autonomously or even tour after awhile, because the mystique surrounding them got to be so bloated and perverse.   The Beatles were great at marketing and merchandising themselves through trinkets and television, but the quality of their actual music remains, to my ears, dismal.  Call me biased, but I can't say with full confidence that the Beatles deserve all of the credit they get in the music industry.

Catcher10 wrote: .please lock this thread.

Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Catcher10 wrote: .please lock this thread. +1   -1   I don't think I'm done shouting at the wind yet.

^ He was online just now looking at this thread so I was trying to second guess it. He's offline now. Maybe he knows he's beaten?

Snow Dog wrote: ^ He was online just now looking at this thread so I was trying to second guess it. He's offline now. Maybe he knows he's beaten? I doubt it though.

Your logic fascinates and disturbs me.  Perhaps you are more eager to hear what I have to say than you readily admit? 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-entertainment/music/2009/10/30/ex-genesis-guitarist-steve-hackett-recalls-hearing-john-lennon-say-he-loved-them-100252-25047932/

Barking Weasel wrote: Dean wrote: Barking Weasel wrote: Do you like The Clash?  One of their most famous songs, named "London Calling," contains the lyrics "phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust."  Presumably, if the Beatles were so important to the development of rock music, every rock luminary in history would line up behind them. Joe Strummer clearly thinks that the Beatles weren't very good.     Erm. No. Strummer is referring to the situation with The Clash following the end Punk in late 76/early 77. That's not a vague interpretation, it's in the lyric: "London Calling, now don't look to us, phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust". Notice that the preceding phrase refers to "us" (ie The Clash") making the "phony-Beatlemania" also a reference to them, which means that the success that he experienced was a phony-Beatlemania, not that Beatlemania was phony. Basically he's saying don't put The Clash on a pedestal like the Beatles. That is an interesting interpretation.  Still, based on the lyrics I do not think that Strummer was a Beatles fan, or would have cited them as a major influence.  Here is an article about his musical roots that supports my view: http://www.emusic.com/lists/showlist.html?lid=22445900

Erm, again No. The lyrics do not indicate that Strummer was not a Beatles fan - how you deduce that from the lyric is beyond me. Whether he quickly discarded them for the Stones is immaterial, as is whether he was a fan or not. Siouxsie Sioux was a fan of The Beatles and that is also immaterial. Collecting famous non-fans is not a winning argument.

Dean wrote: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-entertainment/music/2009/10/30/ex-genesis-guitarist-steve-hackett-recalls-hearing-john-lennon-say-he-loved-them-100252-25047932/

Ahhh...I will fully admit, you have hit the mushiest part of my soul dead-on .  Perhaps you scrolled through my Genesis reviews, noting that I gave 4-5 star ratings for every album from the Peter Gabriel era, including "Trespass?"  That was a good tactic, appealing to my love of that band.   Well-played; you are a cruel apologist for the Beatles, indeed.

Despite this, my earlier point still stands.  Not every major progressive-rock band or composer thought highly of the Beatles, or found them to be influential to their own music.  Not every music artist was in love with them, or cited them directly.  There still remains a discrepancy between the popular view of their influence, and their actual influence on widely respected music artists in the progressive rock genre.

I have finished an earlier rebuttal to the Goodall documentary, but I hesitate to post it in this forum because I am highly critical of the documentary; also, my summary contains many tongue-in-cheek elements, and I think most people were not expecting that from this discussion.  I may reconsider later though, so it may or may not appear.  The final summary is two pages long, so the post may also be ridiculously long. 

I'll conclude this post by saying that I am not entirely sure why there was such a huge outcry to my earlier statements.  People openly trash my favorite bands relentlessly to my face and in critical circles, but I don't get in a hissy fit about it, since to me listening to music should be about the personal reward and not the external reward from society.  I say, if you need a critic or social network to validate your chosen band for you, than perhaps you are listening to that band for the wrong reasons.  Over and over, I hear Beatles fans talk about this critic, and that critic who sing praises to their favorite group.  Why not just enjoy the music for its own sake and inherent value, instead of dissecting and pontificating on each individual element like Goodall does?  To me, the Beatles catalog represents a segment of popular music that is impersonal, pretentiously analyzed, and overly-laden with cultural significance.  When I listen to the Beatles, I find that all I can really hear is the cultural behemoth of "greatest rock band in the world," and not the creative force that by all accounts, I should be hearing.  In the end, the music suffers as a result.                      

Catcher10 wrote: Barking Weasel wrote: Catcher10 wrote: The Beatles are gods........please lock this thread. So...it is a crime to question the Beatles now?  This comment is indicative of the unbalanced view of the subject at hand, and your ridiculous comparison of the Beatles to mythical sky beings discredits your own assertions.  Had I used profane language in my posts, you might have had a legitimate concern.  I and many others have voiced our opinions on this issue, many of which have literally contradicted what you believe to be true.  I personally think that my posts add value to this discussion, because not many people are willing to question popularly-accepted views on the Beatles contributions to music.  Without multiple perspectives, this discussion would be nothing more than a stagnant rehash of every other Beatles debate in existence. Interestingly enough, the Beatles contributions to progressive rock as a whole may not have been as extensive as some here are pointing out.  Both Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart of Rush have gone on record as stating that the Rolling Stones were more of an influence on their music than the Beatles.  In his semi-autobiographical Traveling Music book, Peart even goes so far as to say that he never listens to the Beatles, and is more of a Beach Boys fan.  Frank Zappa echoes these sentiments at the beginning of the attached interview, stating that the Beatles were a less integral band to him in comparison to the Rolling Stones during the 60's. Do you like The Clash?  One of their most famous songs, named "London Calling," contains the lyrics "phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust."  Presumably, if the Beatles were so important to the development of rock music, every rock luminary in history would line up behind them. Joe Strummer clearly thinks that the Beatles weren't very good.  Not everyone has to agree about whether or not the Beatles were important to rock music, so I think the debate is fair, and this thread should remain open.  If it does not, I can still express my views on their music through the individual album review system.   BW....sir, I will respectfully say that had you read this whole thread from the start, you would know that I 100% do not feel the Beatles are anywhere near godlike status. And my answer to the OP question was YES. I too mentioned that Rush very rarely mentions the Beatles in any manner as an influence and specifically none of their early music comes close to being Beatles influenced.   Understand that my post above was me being sarcastic to this whole thread.   Although I am glad I got Dean back into it.....his posts are always enjoyable.

Well, I'll be darned...I thought something was weird about that post.  Yes, you are absolutely right; I did not catch the sarcasm, so I apologize for haranguing you with that lengthy reply.  

Barking Weasel wrote: I'll conclude this post by saying that I am not entirely sure why there was such a huge outcry to my earlier statements.  People openly trash my favorite bands relentlessly to my face and in critical circles, but I don't get in a hissy fit about it, since to me listening to music should be about the personal reward and not the external reward from society.

Nobody would ever stop you from disliking the Beatles or any other band or artist, because it's entirely your personal choice. But people like you are not satisfied with that. You assume that because you don't like something, it can't possibly be so important and influential as it is made out to be and all the people who believe it are just idiot fanboys. That, needless to say, is an incredibly elitist position and given your lack of strong defence for your position save flaming rants that mean precious little other than to say that you dislike them strongly (which we already know, duh!), you got the responses you deserved.

Barking Weasel wrote:   Why not just enjoy the music for its own sake and inherent value, instead of dissecting and pontificating on each individual element like Goodall does?

Er, I like analyzing music and a lot of people do. What on earth is wrong with that? I also don't understand how understanding what goes into the music will somehow take away from its 'inherent value' - which is really all that Goodall did in those video-essays - and why music listeners must always be expected to regard it as superstitious ancestors regarded rain clouds - with apprehension and bewilderment.  At the end of the day, it is my choice or Goodall's for that matter, so please do not pontificate on it, thank you kindly.

Barking Weasel wrote:    To me, the Beatles catalog represents a segment of popular music that is impersonal, pretentiously analyzed, and overly-laden with cultural significance.  When I listen to the Beatles, I find that all I can really hear is the cultural behemoth of "greatest rock band in the world," and not the creative force that by all accounts, I should be hearing.  In the end, the music suffers as a result.

That is just your opinion and the way you experienced their music. It does not represent objective fact and therefore does not preclude us from disagreeing with you and expressing our reasons why.  Ermmm, I hope you appreciate that a debate is two way. It cannot be you, BW, pontificating on why the world is totally wrong about Beatles and all of us listening quietly in reverent silence, so let me take this opportunity to burst your bubble.  We have our reasons and have given them in extensive detail. Take it or leave it, debate on it if you wish, but don't crib.

I, for instance, got into Beatles before I knew much about their significance to rock music so I am happily immune to the "overrated prejudice" that the music of popular bands gets subjected to.  BY the same token, it would be so easy for me to suggest that you have built up some preconceived expectations of what you want the greatest rock band to sound like and that, more than anything, is what is stopping you from giving Beatles an impartial assessment.        



Edited by rogerthat - April 30 2011 at 08:55