Do the Beatles get too much credit..

rogerthat wrote: Barking Weasel wrote: rogerthat wrote: In any case, some of the most adventurous and experimental bands have not had particularly great or appealing vocals, so you are literally clutching at straws now.   When I listen to an "experimental" band, I don't necessarily expect wonderful vocals.  I expect music that I can puff  to if I have the inclination to do so.  I love Can, but I will also be the first to claim that Damo Suzuki's outlandish vocals are not the greatest or most accessible.  However, his singing is unique in that it is NOT at the forefront of the music, like it so often is with the Beatles or the Rolling Stones.  Just listen to an album like "Tago Mago," where the compositions meander without vocals for large stretches.  Compare that to "Sergeant Pepper," where the singing is constant and inescapable throughout the entire record. When I listen to a pop/rock group like the Beatles, I expect great vocals because that is clearly the focus of what a typical rock band is trying to accomplish within the confines of normal song structures.  The voice becomes the most important aspect of their sound, since it is at the forefront of songs like "A Hard Day's Night" or "Let It Be."  However, like I said before, I come away disappointed with the Beatles very prominent and noticeable vocal sound.  Just a matter of taste.    The point I am addressing is it's a fundamental misconception of what is experimental or innovative or creative in music and unfortunately, be it through the dodecaphony or the acid rock worship later on (ironically spawned in part by Beatles), something that is encouraged and endorsed.  If you actually confronted the substance of Beatles music instead of going by what is apparent on the surface, you'd get a better perspective but the myth that melodic is staid and 'generic' is perpetrated time and again in rock circles to the point where people believe it to be the truth,

If you are referring to the use of sitar, tape loops, and other gadgetry, sure it was neat that the Beatles used those elements in their music, but it seems to me that credit really should go to the engineers for most of that stuff, or even their producer George Martin.  It was great that the Beatles had the idea to utilize innovative technology (which they themselves did not actually manufacture) in their music, but to be honest, are the results really so fantastic that no one has done it better since?  It seems to me that while the Beatles pioneered certain aspects of studio technique, other bands did a better job later on, and achieved far more excellent results with those methods.  For example, Pink Floyd honed their studio chops over many albums, to create some of the most amazing-sounding music ever recorded on "Dark Side of the Moon" and "Wish You Were Here."

As far as legendary musicians go, we elevate the Beatles to a very high status that I am not sure they deserve.  What about a guy like Brian May, who built his own guitar from scratch as a young man?  Or Robert Fripp, who invented a totally original methodology of guitar, named after himself?  Its not like the Beatles could have done something like that, as famous or "fab" as they were.  

Barking Weasel wrote:   If you are referring to the use of sitar, tape loops, and other gadgetry, sure it was neat that the Beatles used those elements in their music, but it seems to me that credit really should go to the engineers for most of that stuff, or even their producer George Martin.  It was great that the Beatles had the idea to utilize innovative technology (which they themselves did not actually manufacture) in their music, but to be honest, are the results really so fantastic that no one has done it better since?  It seems to me that while the Beatles pioneered certain aspects of studio technique, other bands did a better job later on, and achieved far more excellent results with those methods.  For example, Pink Floyd honed their studio chops over many albums, to create some of the most amazing-sounding music ever recorded on "Dark Side of the Moon" and "Wish You Were Here." As far as legendary musicians go, we elevate the Beatles to a very high status that I am not sure they deserve.  What about a guy like Brian May, who built his own guitar from scratch as a young man?  Or Robert Fripp, who invented a totally original methodology of guitar, named after himself?  Its not like the Beatles could have done something like that, as famous or "fab" as they were.

Dean wrote: Logan wrote: giselle wrote: Dean wrote: [QUOTE=Logan]   Innovation does not mean invention, it means to renew or change, so to answer your OP accurately, even I, who doesn't particularily enjoy listening to them so can't be a Beatles fanatic, can recognise that "No" is a valid answer since while the Beatles didn't "invent" all those things they did renew and change them to such an extent to actually make a difference. The best post and comment so far. Absolutely puts the whole thing in context. Indeed, but I said innovation and/ or origination.  I deliberately  phrased so that one could answer yes or no depending on one's focus/ tact.  I was being rather ambiguous.  Thought it would be more fun.  I still think I made my ideas on the topic quite clear over a few posts.  I'd like to assume that people were trying to understand what I was getting at (my intent). It makes little difference - taking two dispartate concepts and melding them together is still being original even if the starting points weren't.   Most people vote first read/post later, we kinda established that some time ago so any later elaboration is moot when it comes to voting, though subsequent comments may indeed take your clarifications into account.   Until you list a lot of things fans claimed the Beatles "invented" of course

I did write in the poll question "See opening post for question." I myself have often said that people don't read the poll questions or bother to read opening posts and just vote.  But as I've said, I don't take the poll seriously anyway.  It's just an accessory.  It's for fun, and I thought this would be a fun discussion, and the only thing that really saddens me is that there has been so much hostility in the thread.  I wish life could be one big love-in even when disagreeing with others.  But far more hostility towards others than affection in this thread, I think. I thought by my second post which I wrote not long after my first that I had clarified more.  Hopefully most people who put effort into rather self-contained responses (not just quoting others to disagree but putting forth their own analysis and thoughts based on the initial question) at least took the time to read someways into the thread.  But you know what, it really doesn't matter to me.

I listed what the Beatles invented because that addresses the question of origination.  It was early on that I started talking about things that people claim that the Beatles originated.  My favourite discussions lead to a synthesis of ideas, and I don't see this happening much in this thread.  I have my agenda, others have theirs.  I don't understand how your comment puts everything in this thread in perspective, just as I didn't understand why this was a stupid thread [edit: that should be topic rather than thread] that should be closed.

I'm off to the US for a tulip festival where I can happily tiptoe through the tulips.  Think I'll find more flower power there than in this thread where I sometimes think people (including myself for starting such topics) are more interested in finding opposing ground than common ground.


Edited by Logan - April 23 2011 at 12:29

Logan wrote: I did write in the poll question "See opening post for question." I myself have often said that people don't read the poll questions or bother to read opening posts and just vote.  But as I've said, I don't take the poll seriously anyway.  It's just an accessory.  It's for fun, and I thought this would be a fun discussion, and the only thing that really saddens me is that there has been so much hostility in the thread.  I wish life could be one big love-in even when disagreeing with others.  But far more hostility towards others than affection in this thread, I think. I thought by my second post which I wrote not long after my first that I had clarified more.  Hopefully most people who put effort into rather self-contained responses (not just quoting others to disagree but putting forth their own analysis and thoughts based on the initial question) at least took the time to read someways into the thread.  But you know what, it really doesn't matter to me. I listed what the Beatles invented because that addresses the question of origination.  It was early on that I started talking about things that people claim that the Beatles originated.  My favourite discussions lead to a synthesis of ideas, and I don't see this happening much in this thread.  I have my agenda, others have theirs.  I don't understand how your comment puts everything in this thread in perspective, just as I didn't understand why this was a stupid thread [edit: that should be topic rather than thread] that should be closed. I'm off to the US for a tulip festival where I can happily tiptoe through the tulips.  Think I'll find more flower power there than in this thread where I sometimes think people (including myself for starting such topics) are more interested in finding opposing ground than common ground.

What saddens me is that someone like myself who puts a lot of thought and research into a post for the express purpose of delving deeper into why such claims for a single group of four musicians should even exist ends up arguing with a nay-sayer who simply states inaccurate and unsubstantiated opinion, instead of exploring the valuable factual material I have presented. Of course the answer to that is pretty obvious, it's due to my pedantic, but cantankerous, nature that I cannot walk away from an inaccurate statement. For that I appologise (to you not him).

Edited by Dean - April 27 2011 at 06:21

As many of you pointed out, the Beatles were the first to utilize many of the studio techniques that were revolutionary in the 60's.  However, the language that has often been used in the media, and by fans and critics, to describe the contributions of the Beatles (technological innovation and experimental-ism) indicates that they themselves (Paul, John, George, and Ringo) deserve sole credit for the birth of these inventions.  This is simply untrue, and that is why the Beatles are overrated; they get credit for the grunt work others did, and became poster-boys for innovation in the process. 

As I stated before, the real credit should go ONLY to the engineers who actually invented double tracking and feedback loops, not to the musicians who by their good fortunate had the money and resources to commission their design.  Its not like the Beatles even had a say in the actual physical design that resulted; they just asked for what they wanted, and a lowly engineer arranged for them to get it. 

By that logic, we should be giving Cher credit for inventing auto-tune; of course she did NOT invent it, someone else did (namely, Andy Hildebrand).  She was just one of the first music artists to utilize it.  Does that really make her a superior innovator of modern music?  No.  The same principle applies to the Beatles, who used technology designed by other people who sometimes worked for them.  Not by them, personally. 

I am not denying that this technology was an important aspect of their sound, I am just arguing for proper credit being given at this point, and trying to emphasize that the Beatles (Paul, John, George, and Ringo) were not operating in a vacuum with no outside support, and were not completely responsible for all of the innovation surrounding them.

I mention Pink Floyd as a group who achieved a particularly excellent recorded output in the 70's, which sonically exceeds anything the Beatles ever released.  My earlier point was that music artists have strongly improved their sound beyond the capacity the Beatles were capable of originally, during the late 60's and early 70's.

You may ask, why I am I giving more credit to Pink Floyd for "honing their chops," instead of the Beatles?  I really am not; if you read what I have actually written, all I am saying is that claims made about the Beatles are wildly exaggerated, while Pink Floyd achieved a better production sound than the Beatles did.  Yes, the Beatles did hone their abilities with each album, but also never made an album that sounds as good (from a mastering perspective) as "Dark Side Of The Moon."  

Many people have suggested to me that I should watch the documentary.  I would love to; I will do so, and get back to you.        

 

Barking Weasel wrote: As many of you pointed out, the Beatles were the first to utilize many of the studio techniques that were revolutionary in the 60's.  However, the language that has often been used in the media, and by fans and critics, to describe the contributions of the Beatles (technological innovation and experimental-ism) indicates that they themselves (Paul, John, George, and Ringo) deserve sole credit for the birth of these inventions.  This is simply untrue, and that is why the Beatles are overrated; they get credit for the grunt work others did, and became poster-boys for innovation in the process.  As I stated before, the real credit should go ONLY to the engineers who actually invented double tracking and feedback loops, not to the musicians who by their good fortunate had the money and resources to commission their design.  Its not like the Beatles even had a say in the actual physical design that resulted; they just asked for what they wanted, and a lowly engineer arranged for them to get it.  By that logic, we should be giving Cher credit for inventing auto-tune; of course she did NOT invent it, someone else did (namely, Andy Hildebrand).  She was just one of the first music artists to utilize it.  Does that really make her a superior innovator of modern music?  No.  The same principle applies to the Beatles, who used technology designed by other people who sometimes worked for them.  Not by them, personally.  I am not denying that this technology was an important aspect of their sound, I am just arguing for proper credit being given at this point, and trying to emphasize that the Beatles (Paul, John, George, and Ringo) were not operating in a vacuum with no outside support, and were not completely responsible for all of the innovation surrounding them. I mention Pink Floyd as a group who achieved a particularly excellent recorded output in the 70's, which sonically exceeds anything the Beatles ever released.  My earlier point was that music artists have strongly improved their sound beyond the capacity the Beatles were capable of originally, during the late 60's and early 70's. You may ask, why I am I giving more credit to Pink Floyd for "honing their chops," instead of the Beatles?  I really am not; if you read what I have actually written, all I am saying is that claims made about the Beatles are wildly exaggerated, while Pink Floyd achieved a better production sound than the Beatles did.  Yes, the Beatles did hone their abilities with each album, but also never made an album that sounds as good (from a mastering perspective) as "Dark Side Of The Moon."   Many people have suggested to me that I should watch the documentary.  I would love to; I will do so, and get back to you.

I'm going to use your logic.....Alan Parsons deserves complete responsibility for the greatness of Dark Side of the Moon. As an engineer, Floyd simply used him and his talents. Nothing on that album displays anything remarkable about Pink Floyd...


Also the 2009 Beatles remasters by George Martin are among the best sounding recordings I've heard. And that was the general consensus of a great many people. Let's be honest here.

mr.cub wrote: Barking Weasel wrote: As many of you pointed out, the Beatles were the first to utilize many of the studio techniques that were revolutionary in the 60's.  However, the language that has often been used in the media, and by fans and critics, to describe the contributions of the Beatles (technological innovation and experimental-ism) indicates that they themselves (Paul, John, George, and Ringo) deserve sole credit for the birth of these inventions.  This is simply untrue, and that is why the Beatles are overrated; they get credit for the grunt work others did, and became poster-boys for innovation in the process.  As I stated before, the real credit should go ONLY to the engineers who actually invented double tracking and feedback loops, not to the musicians who by their good fortunate had the money and resources to commission their design.  Its not like the Beatles even had a say in the actual physical design that resulted; they just asked for what they wanted, and a lowly engineer arranged for them to get it.  By that logic, we should be giving Cher credit for inventing auto-tune; of course she did NOT invent it, someone else did (namely, Andy Hildebrand).  She was just one of the first music artists to utilize it.  Does that really make her a superior innovator of modern music?  No.  The same principle applies to the Beatles, who used technology designed by other people who sometimes worked for them.  Not by them, personally.  I am not denying that this technology was an important aspect of their sound, I am just arguing for proper credit being given at this point, and trying to emphasize that the Beatles (Paul, John, George, and Ringo) were not operating in a vacuum with no outside support, and were not completely responsible for all of the innovation surrounding them. I mention Pink Floyd as a group who achieved a particularly excellent recorded output in the 70's, which sonically exceeds anything the Beatles ever released.  My earlier point was that music artists have strongly improved their sound beyond the capacity the Beatles were capable of originally, during the late 60's and early 70's. You may ask, why I am I giving more credit to Pink Floyd for "honing their chops," instead of the Beatles?  I really am not; if you read what I have actually written, all I am saying is that claims made about the Beatles are wildly exaggerated, while Pink Floyd achieved a better production sound than the Beatles did.  Yes, the Beatles did hone their abilities with each album, but also never made an album that sounds as good (from a mastering perspective) as "Dark Side Of The Moon."   Many people have suggested to me that I should watch the documentary.  I would love to; I will do so, and get back to you.           I'm going to use your logic.....Alan Parsons deserves complete responsibility for the greatness of Dark Side of the Moon. As an engineer, Floyd simply used him and his talents. Nothing on that album displays anything remarkable about Pink Floyd... Also the 2009 Beatles remasters by George Martin are among the best sounding recordings I've heard. And that was the general consensus of a great many people. Let's be honest here.

You are correct, and you are also halfway towards understanding what I am saying, so let me clarify. Indeed, Pink Floyd (Mason, Wright, Waters, and Gilmour) also do NOT deserve full credit for the unbelievable sound they achieved.  That would be giving undeserved praise to the artist, rather than to the engineer who achieved that sound.  Though I would argue that such a debate in regards to Pink Floyd's level of studio innovation would not lead anywhere substantial, in that the excessive hyperbole by critics regarding the Beatles' "revolutionizing of the music studio" is generally not used to describe Pink Floyd's studio method.  They don't get the credit that the Beatles get, which doesn't surprise me.  They were not critical favorites, like the Beatles were. 

However, there is a corollary to my argument about Pink Floyd that you did not cite from my earlier post. "Dark Side Of The Moon" quite simply achieves a more perfect balance in its mastering, when compared to anything by the Beatles.  This is independent of who deserves credit for the mastering; it is simply an observation that I have made as a listener.  That is what I have been trying to emphasize; I do not think that the production on the original Beatles albums should be so highly lauded by music critics, when the quality of recording technology has advanced and progressed so far beyond the Beatles original technological capabilities (in only a few short years, between 1968 and 1974, many albums that were released sound incredibly modern, and easily excel the sound quality of "Revolver" and "Sergeant Pepper").  Excellent-sounding records were a regular occurrence by 1974, putting to shame the quality of mastering on the original Beatles records.  For example, rock bands like Gentle Giant, Focus, and Supertramp made albums that remain sonically excellent today, and production-wise, are far more palatable than the Beatles offerings from the 60's and early 70's. 

For that reason, I think that the perpetuated stereotype of the original Beatles albums possessing excellent and superior mastering is a regressive argument, and is also not accurate when you factor in the technological advances made since their relevancy as a band ended in the 70's.  Why not simply acknowledge that the mastering on the majority of their records does not sound very good anymore, in comparison to many excellent albums that have followed in their wake (unless you are ONLY referring to the remastered versions, which not everyone has listened to)?  I will still listen to the remasters for comparison, but as I have stated before, my experience with run-of-the-mill Beatles albums is that they are distorted, static-sounding, and noticeably a product of their time.  I would also claim that this substandard recording quality can be found on the early Frank Zappa albums, and I love Zappa, so I am not solely using this line of argument against the Beatles as a result of disliking their music.

In order to give some perspective, here are the two Beatles studio albums that I think have the best sound, even if I do not like the music on them all that well:  "Abbey Road," and "Let It Be."  To my ear, the quality of recording improved slightly with each successive Beatles release, beginning with "Rubber Soul," and manifested its height of excellence on "Let It Be."  "Let It Be" sounds like a fully-fledged 70's record from a production standpoint, and the quality of mastering indicates that if the Beatles had continued, they might have achieved a sound on par with "Dark Side Of The Moon."  However, they did not continue to make albums after that.  The ultimate Beatles production opus never fully materialized, as it did with Pink Floyd.   


Edited by Barking Weasel - April 23 2011 at 22:43

rogerthat wrote: And by the way, DSOTM is very widely acknowledged as an example of production excellence, so what precisely your point is beats me.  If you're claiming that Beatles production is overhyped and Dark Side does not get its due, you are once again clutching at straws.  And if you are going to throw a hissy fit over production, maybe people should not listen to the live recordings of Bill Evans either and stick to ermm Kenny G because the production values on the latter are way more matured.

I am not disputing that DSOTM is highly regarded, I am in fact validating that widely held belief, and acknowledging it is true for me also.  I totally agree that "Dark Side" now gets all the critical accolades and respect it deserves and more, which I am happy about.  However, I am still saying that the Beatles production has long since been outclassed, and their sound is outdated in comparison to works that came after them (such as DSOTM).

Kenny G has "matured" production values?  Highly glossy and overly polished elevator music does not equal mature, in my estimation.  That does not sound like a reasonable line of inquiry to me; why would anyone on this forum care about Kenny G?  He's not even a progressive or prog-related artist!  Production for me is a deal-breaker only when it highly interferes with my own enjoyment of the music.  It may be shocking to die-hard Beatles fans to actually hear someone cry foul about their favorite albums, but I am not exaggerating in the slightest when I say that "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" have a grating sound quality to my ears.

Here are examples of what I consider to be mature-sounding albums that I enjoy and that I like listening to; I think they easily eclipse what the Beatles have done from a standpoint of sounding really good, and being well-mastered albums that don't have annoying audio defects, tape hiss, or vocal distortion:

"Moving Pictures" by Rush, "Hamburger Concerto" by Focus, "Crime Of The Century" by Supertramp, "The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway" by Genesis, "Kind Of Blue" by Miles Davis, "The Soft Bulletin" by the Flaming Lips, "Shut Up N' Play Yer Guitar" by Frank Zappa, "Acquiring The Taste" by Gentle Giant, "The Black Album" by Metallica, and either "Dark Side Of The Moon" or "Wish You Were Here" by Pink Floyd.

Are any of these albums universally regarded as being inherently superior to the output of the Beatles?  No, but my point is that they sound exceptional and don't have production issues that would otherwise interfere with my listening experience, unlike the music of the Beatles.  Are you telling me that the Beatles should STILL sound better, production-wise, than all of the albums I have listed above?  As I've said before, I am comitted to hearing the Beatles remasters.  So far, most of what I've heard outside of these new releaes has been unimpressive from a mastering standpoint.   

Dean wrote: Barking Weasel wrote: If you are referring to the use of sitar, tape loops, and other gadgetry, sure it was neat that the Beatles used those elements in their music, but it seems to me that credit really should go to the engineers for most of that stuff, or even their producer George Martin.  It was great that the Beatles had the idea to utilize innovative technology (which they themselves did not actually manufacture) in their music, but to be honest, are the results really so fantastic that no one has done it better since?  It seems to me that while the Beatles pioneered certain aspects of studio technique, other bands did a better job later on, and achieved far more excellent results with those methods.  For example, Pink Floyd honed their studio chops over many albums, to create some of the most amazing-sounding music ever recorded on "Dark Side of the Moon" and "Wish You Were Here." I suggest you read the Wiki article on Flanging, an audio effect freely credited to studio engineer Ken Townsend. While it is pretty obvious that Lennon did not invent this effect, it was his request that it be invented and he was the first recording artist to use it. If no one ever uses it then it doesn't matter who invented it. Rest assured, the Beatles gave credit where credit was due, that's why so many studio engineers became "famous" for working with the Beatles (Townsend, Emerick, Smith, etc). One issue with the article you cite, is that there are actually many competing claims for the first official use of the effect you describe.  Doubtless, the Beatles were innovative in their pioneering use of it.  But as you say, they did not actually invent it.  Why should the band members get individual credit for this, if it was the engineers who designed it in the first place?  I don't find it incredibly impressive that all Lennon had to do was name it a "Flanger," without actually contributing anything to it personally.  My earlier point was that all Lennon and company had to do was get one of their engineers to do the dirty work for them.  The article proved that this is exactly what occurred.       Whether anyone perfected the use of these exotic instruments, studio effects and techniques after the event is immaterial. That's not the question, the question is "do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination?" - and when it comes to using all these, the Beatles were either the first to use them, or the first to popularise them, which means they were innovative in using them, and at the time, originators of using them. The key phrase was "innovation and origination," meaning it must have been invented or created before being utilized. However, the band members did not actually invent anything original on their own; their engineers either created it, or it was procured elsewhere.  Sitar from India, tape looping from Stackhausen, clothes from the circus.  Again, there are conflicting reports of where these innovations actually originated from, whether it was with the Beatles organization or somewhere else.  It doesn't sound like there are definitive conclusions yet on the subject.      Barking Weasel wrote: As far as legendary musicians go, we elevate the Beatles to a very high status that I am not sure they deserve.  What about a guy like Brian May, who built his own guitar from scratch as a young man?  Brian May was 16 when he and his father, Harold, built their first guitar. This is impressive, but not outstandingly so - a guitar is just a plank of wood with strings and pickup, my dad made my first accoustic guitar for me, and I made another semi-accoustic when I was 16 or so, including winding my own pick-ups - it really isn't difficult or complicated, even for a 16 yo. What is impressive is May making one that sounds that good and has lasted 48 years (okay, it's since been rebuilt by lutier Greg Fryer). One minor but relevant fact is that May had Fryer build three exact replica's of the original Red Special - which were named John, Paul and George... (I wonder why?) May also has a doctorate in Astrophysics and is a consummate gentleman, or at least he comes across that way in interviews.  Unlike the sound obtained by the Beatles (who have never demonstrated the capability to ever match a feat of Brian May's undertaking with regards to building a guitar from scratch), May's guitar sounds gritty and savage on record during classic era of Queen (before the synth-heavy era).  The Beatles?  Piano driven scales and accents with violin on "Eleanor Rigby," elegant sitar on "Within You, Without You," but no glamorized power chords or adventurous high-octane riffs, such as can be found on "I Want It All" or "Bohemian Rhapsody."  It really is like comparing weak tea with a frappaccino, as far as I'm concerned.  Barking Weasel wrote: Or Robert Fripp, who invented a totally original methodology of guitar, named after himself?  Its not like the Beatles could have done something like that, as famous or "fab" as they were.   Are you confusing Guitar Craft (a guitar and personal development  course devised by Fripp) with Frippertronics? Frippertronics is simply live overdubbing using very long tape loops and two tape decks - innovative sure, especially in a live setting, but the Beatles had used tape-loops, twin head decks (see flanger article above) and overdubbing in the studio six years earlier (after Terry Riley's first use of tape-loops in the 60s). So it is like the Beatles could have done something like that, because in parts, they did. I was actually talking about Frippertronics, but Guitar Craft is also a good example of what I am trying to point out.  Like you said, while the Beatles may have been innovators with tape-loops (despite the fact that they got the idea from avant-garde composers in the London music scene; I did see your documentary BTW), Fripp really stretched the bounds of the guitar as an instrument not only in the studio, but also in concert, with the tape-loop system he personally developed.  The Beatles mostly relied on their engineers for innovation; Fripp was personally involved with the systems he developed, both in Guitar Craft and Frippertronics.  Also, his celebrity and ego do not overpower his ability to connect with students to help spread knowledge about the instrument.  I can't imagine McCartney or Starr becoming actively involved with music study and teaching, in the way that Fripp has often demonstrated.

rogerthat wrote: Barking Weasel wrote:  One issue with the article you cite, is that there are actually many competing claims for the first official use of the effect you describe.  Doubtless, the Beatles were innovative in their pioneering use of it.  But as you say, they did not actually invent it.  Why should the band members get individual credit for this, if it was the engineers who designed it in the first place?  I don't find it incredibly impressive that all Lennon had to do was name it a "Flanger," without actually contributing anything to it personally.  My earlier point was that all Lennon and company had to do was get one of their engineers to do the dirty work for them.  The article proved that this is exactly what occurred. Are you really sure things have been attributed SOLELY to Beatles, and apparently at the unfair expense of say engineers, as originating concepts in MUSIC? That is, that tape looping was originated by Beatles and not Stockhausen?  Are you sure this is not down to you interpreting what is said too literally or simply deriving another meaning?  The argument with respect to origination is a non starter because it has always been said only that Beatles could claim many firsts in ROCK music, not MUSIC as a whole.  That the general public is losing interest in the achievements of Stockhausen or Stravinsky is not the Beatles's fault.  That, at the same time, does not take away from their impact on rock music in any way.             Barking Weasel wrote: May also has a doctorate in Astrophysics and is a consummate gentleman, or at least he comes across that way in interviews.  Unlike the sound obtained by the Beatles (who have never demonstrated the capability to ever match a feat of Brian May's undertaking with regards to building a guitar from scratch), May's guitar sounds gritty and savage on record during classic era of Queen (before the synth-heavy era).  The Beatles?  Piano driven scales and accents with violin on "Eleanor Rigby," elegant sitar on "Within You, Without You," but no glamorized power chords or adventurous high-octane riffs, such as can be found on "I Want It All" or "Bohemian Rhapsody."  It really is like comparing weak tea with a frappaccino, as far as I'm concerned.  All irrelevant to the argument. Besides, May didn't, to go back to your favourite word, originate powerchords either.  As influential as Queen were, May is small fry in terms of impact next to a Tony Iommi or Jimmy Page. And that he is an astrophysicist and, according to you, a gentleman, has no bearing on this debate. Stravinsky was purported to be a Fascist sympathizer...doesn't take away from his musical achievements.  Barking Weasel wrote: I was actually talking about Frippertronics, but Guitar Craft is also a good example of what I am trying to point out.  Like you said, while the Beatles may have been innovators with tape-loops (despite the fact that they got the idea from avant-garde composers in the London music scene; I did see your documentary BTW), Fripp really stretched the bounds of the guitar as an instrument not only in the studio, but also in concert, with the tape-loop system he personally developed.  The Beatles mostly relied on their engineers for innovation; Fripp was personally involved with the systems he developed, both in Guitar Craft and Frippertronics.  Also, his celebrity and ego do not overpower his ability to connect with students to help spread knowledge about the instrument.  I can't imagine McCartney or Starr becoming actively involved with music study and teaching, in the way that Fripp has often demonstrated.    Once again, highly irrelevant. You are arguing something that has not been attributed to Beatles.  How does Fripp being a great teacher of music and guitar craft make the Beatles overrated with respect to innovation?  There is simply no logical connection at all.

I'll be relatively brief:

The typical public dialogue that is often used to describe the origins of the innovative technology that was utilized by the Beatles, almost never directly credits the engineers in an obvious fashion, but instead discusses the band members as being primary contributors.  To me this gives a false overview of the situation, and a misleading one.  That is definitely a primary reason for my argument, but as you elaborated further, my posts go further than that.  You may think that character and personality of said band mates does not matter in this debate, and that is your prerogative.  However, it does matter to me so that is why I mention that aspect, because I am trying to illustrate a broader point about why I dislike the Beatles on a personal level, and why I think the band is overrated.  Obviously, if the character comparisons were ALL that I were using to back up my argument, I would have a very weak argument indeed.  However, I do also explain my issues with the Beatles' music and cultural mystique, and with the overblown fawning that they receive. 

I will elaborate further by giving a rebuttal to the documentary posted earlier on this thread, in that I think Goodall is misleading in his summation of the Beatles, and especially in his perception of avant-garde classical music of the 40's and 50's being a legitimate threat to the traditional framework of western classical music.  I think he draws ridiculous conclusions, and I would love to explain my reasoning at length right now, but unfortunately I have to go.  I look forward to continuing the debate later on, however.