Can We Get Another Beatles thread?

p0mt3 wrote: splyu wrote: Name even one important prog rock band from the 70s that was not influenced by them! Jethro Tull . . .

I doubt it.

You complain that there are so many Beatles threads.

And then you start yet another Beatles thread, because you think there needs to be less Beatles threads.

Seriously?

splyu wrote: p0mt3 wrote: splyu wrote: Name even one important prog rock band from the 70s that was not influenced by them! Jethro Tull . . . I doubt it.

You calling me a liar?

I don't make claims unless I know what I'm talking about. Ian Anderson has said repeatedly that he greatly disliked The Beatles because he thought they were too mainstream and 'happy'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4mNh5fMGOg

^Watch that video series. Somewhere in the interview he talks about how he never cared for The Beatles.

EDIT: I just watched that very video I just posted the link to. At 2:26, he states: "I never liked Elvis, just in the same way I never liked Paul McCartney. I wasn't a big Beatles fan. I like grumpy people."


Edited by p0mt3 - November 19 2009 at 19:22

I would say the most important influences for Syd Barrett (and Barret era Floyd) were psychedelia/experiment on one hand (I don't know where he got it from or whether it was his inovation) and songwriting a la Beatles and Bob Dylan. Remember a Day, Julia Dreams, Arnold Layne etc. are all proof of Beatles' influence.

I'm sorry, but I find that people extremely often overestimate the Beatles' impact on the history of music.

They were simply in the exact right place, with the exact right image, at the exact right time. They were not really that talented; but I'll give it to them that they were able to capture an audience and achieve fame with it. I don't respect them one bit, but they had enough minimal talent, the perfect image, the perfect timing, and the perfect mix of the type of music most people simply wanted to hear.

It would NOT have taken "much, much longer" for rock, Prog, or the development of music as such thereafter to take off; I honestly believe the history of music wouldn't be all that different---another group would have taken the place of the Beatles.

Besides, when people act like the Beatles were the ONLY act to get that ball rolling, I extremely highly doubt it. They simply were popular enough to warrant recognition of it more than anyone else. It just bugs me when people defend the absolute irrational idolization of the Beatles with historical context, because there really is no way of knowing--and I think that their influence is overstated. They simply put their own spin on THE killer popular music format (which keep in mind has been around since the 1930s), and they succeeded with it. Nothing more.

MovingPictures07 wrote: I'm sorry, but I find that people extremely often overestimate the Beatles' impact on the history of music. They were simply in the exact right place, with the exact right image, at the exact right time. They were not really that talented; but I'll give it to them that they were able to capture an audience and achieve fame with it. I don't respect them one bit, but they had enough minimal talent, the perfect image, the perfect timing, and the perfect mix of the type of music most people simply wanted to hear. It would NOT have taken "much, much longer" for rock, Prog, or the development of music as such thereafter to take off; I honestly believe the history of music wouldn't be all that different---another group would have taken the place of the Beatles. Besides, when people act like the Beatles were the ONLY act to get that ball rolling, I extremely highly doubt it. They simply were popular enough to warrant recognition of it more than anyone else. It just bugs me when people defend the absolute irrational idolization of the Beatles with historical context, because there really is no way of knowing--and I think that their influence is overstated. They simply put their own spin on THE killer popular music format (which keep in mind has been around since the 1930s), and they succeeded with it. Nothing more.

I respect you a lot Alex, but I have to admit, this is a very naive opinion on The Beatles, I must say. I'm willing to bet you have not listened to a single Beatles record post-Sgt. Pepper from beginning to end more than once. Also, I believe people like you who seem to think The Beatles do not deserve their recognition choose to compare their music with every band that came AFTER them, when in fact you should be comparing their music to everybody who came BEFORE them. Then you'll have the proper perspective, and hopefully wake up to the reality that The Beatles changed music forever.

You don't have to like them, but to not respect them is nearly impossible once you truly learn about everything they introduced to the music world.

To be honest with you, I'm somewhere near the middle. I have defended and attacked both sides of this argument throughout this thread because I can see both perspectives. However, the reality is simple: The Beatles probably do get too much credit at times, but that does not mean we should simply disreagrd them completely in order to 'balance things out'. They introduced the concept album, directed the first music videos, were the first band to utilize feedback as a compositional element, first band to fuse world music along with classical and rock, the first band to step out of their boundaries and progress further (any progressive band that may have been around before The Beatles were already there, where as The Beatles did the brave thing and moved away from the norm halfway through their career), and on and on.

If you truly cannot respect them for all of these achievments simply because somebody else may have done something similar later on, then I don't really know what to think. It's true, Moody Blues released 'Days of Future Passed' mere months after 'Sgt. Pepper', but I still consider the latter to be the better concept album of the two. Floyd would only begin producing concept records once Waters became the primary songwriter, which happened nearly a decade later.


Edited by p0mt3 - November 19 2009 at 21:18

p0mt3 wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: I'm sorry, but I find that people extremely often overestimate the Beatles' impact on the history of music. They were simply in the exact right place, with the exact right image, at the exact right time. They were not really that talented; but I'll give it to them that they were able to capture an audience and achieve fame with it. I don't respect them one bit, but they had enough minimal talent, the perfect image, the perfect timing, and the perfect mix of the type of music most people simply wanted to hear. It would NOT have taken "much, much longer" for rock, Prog, or the development of music as such thereafter to take off; I honestly believe the history of music wouldn't be all that different---another group would have taken the place of the Beatles. Besides, when people act like the Beatles were the ONLY act to get that ball rolling, I extremely highly doubt it. They simply were popular enough to warrant recognition of it more than anyone else. It just bugs me when people defend the absolute irrational idolization of the Beatles with historical context, because there really is no way of knowing--and I think that their influence is overstated. They simply put their own spin on THE killer popular music format (which keep in mind has been around since the 1930s), and they succeeded with it. Nothing more. I respect you a lot Alex, but I have to admit, this is a very naive opinion on The Beatles, I must say. I'm willing to bet you have not listened to a single Beatles record post-Sgt. Pepper from beginning to end more than once. Also, I believe people like you who seem to think The Beatles do not deserve their recognition choose to compare their music with every band that came AFTER them, when in fact you should be comparing their music to everybody who came BEFORE them. Then you'll have the proper perspective, and hopefully wake up to the reality that The Beatles changed music forever. You don't have to like them, but to not respect them is nearly impossible once you truly learn about everything they introduced to the music world. To be honest with you, I'm somewhere near the middle. I have defended and attacked both sides of this argument throughout this thread because I can see both perspectives. However, the reality is simple: The Beatles probably do get too much credit at times, but that does not mean we should simply disreagrd them completely in order to 'balance things out'. They introduced the concept album, directed the first music videos, were the first band to utilize feedback as a compositional element, first band to fuse world music along with classical and rock, the first band to step out of their boundaries and progress further (any progressive band that may have been around before The Beatles were already there, where as The Beatles did the brave thing and moved away from the norm halfway through their career), and on and on. If you truly cannot respect them for all of these achievments simply because somebody else may have done something similar later on, then I don't really know what to think. It's true, Moody Blues released 'Days of Future Passed' mere months after 'Sgt. Pepper', but I still consider the latter to be the better concept album of the two. Floyd would only begin producing concept records once Waters became the primary songwriter, which happened nearly a decade later.

Oh, I've heard everything, trust me. My brother plays nothing but the Beatles non-stop; he listens to absolutely nothing else. I've heard every single studio album and live album top to bottom several times too many by now, I'd imagine.

To me, it doesn't matter what they've done. Like I said, I recognize their place in history mainly for what they did do and for the fact that they did the exact right things at the exact right time. Not anyone could have done that.

Still doesn't mean I respect them nor should I; as sonically, musically, and with regards to image, they represent everything that I personally find to be worthy of my dislike in the music world. As a composer and because music is my true only passion in life, I feel strongly about it and for that reason I cannot help but find the Beatles' music to rank extremely low on my tastes simply for what I hold dear in my musical preferences and ideals.

They made music that, to me, was the starting point of the "making music for the masses" movement that became "rock 'n roll" and many other forms of popular music. For that reason alone, I simply cannot find any value in the compositions.

From a purely emotional standpoint they also do nothing for me. It's simply the exact opposite of what I look for in music; and I don't think I could ever like or respect them--that's just me.

Oh sure, the personalities are a part of it too.  Any of the HUGE bands scored in this respect, making their fans care about them on another level.  Even Zeppelin was not just about music...plenty of their fans were buying into the mystique....whereas other bands who may have been as talented as Zepp sold 1/20th of the albums even with radio play.  

Edited by Finnforest - November 19 2009 at 21:48

meant Zepp not just about  music.....i suppose that was obvious

MovingPictures07 wrote: Oh, I've heard everything, trust me. My brother plays nothing but the Beatles non-stop; he listens to absolutely nothing else. I've heard every single studio album and live album top to bottom several times too many by now, I'd imagine. Well, if you've heard everything, then you must know just how diverse The Beatles' music is. They have done traditional Rock 'n' Roll, Symphonic Rock (Elanor Rigby, Goodnight), Avant-Garde Rock (Revolution 9), Metal (Helter Skelter) and Psychedelic Rock (Tomorrow Never Knows), just to name a few of the varying genres they played around in. If you aren't aware of this clear diversity, then you must not really be listening. To me, it doesn't matter what they've done. Like I said, I recognize their place in history mainly for what they did do and for the fact that they did the exact right things at the exact right time. Not anyone could have done that. ''Not anyone could have done that,'' yet you remain unwilling to even give them their due credit. Classy. Still doesn't mean I respect them nor should I; as sonically, musically, and with regards to image, they represent everything that I personally find to be worthy of my dislike in the music world. As a composer and because music is my true only passion in life, I feel strongly about it and for that reason I cannot help but find the Beatles' music to rank extremely low on my tastes simply for what I hold dear in my musical preferences and ideals. No offense Alex, but I've heard your music. It appeals to a very select sort of audience. How would you feel if somebody stomped all over it? I have no doubt in my mind that The Beatles were just as passionate or more about their music as you are about yours. They were NOT just trying to appeal to the masses. They made music that, to me, was the starting point of the "making music for the masses" movement that became "rock 'n roll" and many other forms of popular music. For that reason alone, I simply cannot find any value in the compositions. Very ignorant thing to say. Rock 'n' Roll was around long before The Beatles came along, my dear sir. I hate to say this, but it doesn't sound like you're all that familiar with music history if you honestly believe that the Beatles' music 'BECAME Rock 'n' Roll'. If anything, their music was among the first to truly branch off and OPPOSE Rock 'n' Roll. There is not one traditional rock moment found in their music after ''Revolver''. See, this is why I once again believe that you are assuming too much. What you are calling 'Rock 'n' Roll' is in fact not Rock 'n' Roll at all. All of that stuff more or less ended when The Beatles happened. Traditional Rock 'n' Roll consisted of acts like Chuck Berry, Gary and the Pacemakers, Buddy Holly, and of course, Elvis. Think R&B meets Swing music and Country/Western, and you've got a pretty good definition of what true Rock 'n' Roll was. You seem to be comparing The Beatles' music up against bands that came after them. The Beatles had a lot of imitators; maybe you should listen to what actual Rock 'n' Roll sounded like before The Beatles came on the scene. It was horrible. The Beatles clearly did plenty to go against the norm. It took them a few albums to become brave enough to take the leap, obviously, but once they did, Rock never was the same again. By 60s standards, they were a rough bunch of kids who were corrupting the youth. Nothing was mainstream about it at all. At all. At all. From a purely emotional standpoint they also do nothing for me. It's simply the exact opposite of what I look for in music; and I don't think I could ever like or respect them--that's just me. Yes. Yes, it is. You see, respect is something that should be given to anybody who achieved something as monumental as The Beatles did. Liking them has nothing to do with it. Take me, for instance. I hate nearly everything Bob Dylan has done. Most people love his music; I don't. Nor do I personally understand what the big deal is. But I still have respect for him. Not just because he did a lot to change the face of music in his own right, but also because he influenced many of the musicians I do like. So I can respect him even as I cringe when his music plays. See what I'm saying? Look, bottom line. You can't make the claim that ''if The Beatles' hadn't done it, somebody else would have'', because the very industry would still be substantially different today had their presence never been. Without The Beatles, there would be no Yes, for example. Now you're in the position of saying that if Yes hadn't done what they did, somebody else would have. Perhaps, but it wouldn't have been the same. Without Yes you probably wouldn't have Dream Theater, because John Petrucci was inspired by Steve Howe to become a guitar player. See what I'm getting at, here? It's a big long chain, and had any link been built differently, the end result would have been entirely different. That is why we must respect any artist who has made a significant musical footprint in this world. I don't like punk music, but without it, we would have no Mars Volta. And so on, and so on. Do you honestly not see where I'm coming from? If you have the audacity and arrogance to sit there and make these sort of claims about ANY band, I don't care who they are, then you have a lot of learning to do, my friend. And I say that with love.

Edited by p0mt3 - November 19 2009 at 22:09