Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › THE BEATLES ARE OVERRATED
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

THE BEATLES ARE OVERRATED - Page 5

post #61 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUMAY408 View Post

Ringo was the glue that held that band together as much emotionally as musically.
I'm playing poker Sat. with a certified Beatles buff and he says the same thing and listening to those albums, you can hear it. Ringo wasn't a drumming shredder, just a solid, constant influence. That's what you want from a drummer.
post #62 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Camper View Post


I'm playing poker Sat. with a certified Beatles buff and he says the same thing and listening to those albums, you can hear it. Ringo wasn't a drumming shredder, just a solid, constant influence. That's what you want from a drummer.

 

Go ask a drummer to play along with "Good Morning".

Or "I Am The Walrus".

Or "Strawberry Fields Forever".

Watch what happens!


Edited by Chris J - 7/3/13 at 6:40pm
post #63 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

Go ask a drummer to play along with "Good Morning".
Or "I Am The Walrus".
Or "Strawberry Fields Forever".
Watch what happens!
Just so we're understanding, I think Ringo is worth every accolade he received. I'm a fan.
post #64 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Camper View Post

Just so we're understanding, I think Ringo is worth every accolade he received. I'm a fan.

No problem!

As Phil Collins has pointed out, if you asked a drummer to play "I Am The Walrus" or "Strawberry Fields Forever", Phil says they would not know what to play........they would be stumped!
post #65 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Camper View Post


Just so we're understanding, I think Ringo is worth every accolade he received. I'm a fan.

Here's a weird fact, Ringo had the most #1's after McCartney, post break up.

post #66 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckles View Post

 

Fact is, without the Beatles legitimizing psychedelia into the mainstream with Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepper, and the Beach Boys following with Pet Sounds, there's little chance for the rise of Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Velvet Underground, the Doors, the Who's turn to rock operas, the Yardbirds etc.  (Hint: without the Yardbirds, there is NO Led Zeppelin).

 

That is completely illogical and simply not true.  It would have happened anyway - Hendrix or the Doors or whoever would have come along anyway, and paved the way if they had to.

post #67 of 98

a)  you know this for fact?  or you're saying this "would have happened anyways" as a hind-sight evaluation using revisionism as your guide to say "it happened in our history so of course it would have happened that way even without the beatles"?  i know the answer to this, but judging from your post, i doubt that you do.

 

b) the beatles made such future bands much more palatable for mainstream audiences, ensuring the ability for such bands to enjoy the prominence they were able to achieve.  the beatles dragged their audiences from bubblegum pop through an evolution of music which would not have been possible before.

 

here's a thought experiment: ask yourself would Sgt. Pepper have been commercially successful has it been released in 1962, rather than 1967?  the answer is no.  there was no precedent in 1962 for that kind of creativity or that diversion from what was then mainstream pop music taste.  could it have existed?  absolutely.  if an unknown band has released "Pepper" in 1962, it would have reached a devoted audience that would likely have numbered in the dozens and never amounted to more than an visionary but odd-for-its-time album. 

 

as an aside: the question of "would it have existed in 1962?" is no.  no band at that time could have convinced a record label to invest in all of the resources used by the beatles during Pepper, except for a band who was the #1 world wide draw and could guarantee a return on the label's investment.  maybe Elvis could have gotten it made, but the odds of Elvis creating Pepper ex nihilo are astronomically low.

 

as the beatles evolved into more and more challenging music, they lead their fans into accepting a much richer and more diverse breadth of bands and musical styles.  would the Doors have even formed?  perhaps, but perhaps not.  would their style be the same as what actually happened? i really doubt it. if it was, i don't believe that the audience for it would  have been as large. 

 

it also didn't hurt that endorsements from the beatles were tremendously helpful to advance these musicians.  from wikipedia's article on Jimi hendrix:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_influence_on_popular_culture#Jimi_Hendrix


 

Quote:

 

McCartney had publicly endorsed Hendrix for months, before Hendrix broke into the UK music scene.

 

hmmm, i wonder if there was no beatles, and thus no value in Paul McCartney 's opinion, would Hendrix have had the same reception in the UK?  Possible, but having one of the most famous people in the world opening doors for you makes life an awful lot easier.

post #68 of 98

This article keeps making the rounds but never gets any better. It's badly written, unsubstantiated crap. Basically one guy's opinion without any justification. Exactly how you should not write an essay. Just to consider the first paragraph:

 

"The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art."

 

Define rock, define art. Provide some citations for your claim. Which books are you talking about?

 

"Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times."

 

A highly contentious point, since one could also find critics who would cite Miles Davis, or Thelonius Monk, or Billie Holiday, or any one of dozens of other choices. Besides, what does the opinion of jazz critics have to do with The Beatles? Further, is the author really citing these artist as those who are unpopular or flew beneath the radar? It is to laugh.

 

"Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe."

 

Same problem as before. The author has conflated all opinions of classical music into one. It is also ridiculous to call Beethoven "highly controversial" unless the comment references a particular time period in which this was true. Since I doubt that time period includes the patch when The Beatles were active, it is irrelevant. Turn it around the other way: one could argue that The Beatles are worthy of greatness since they were practically unknown in their Hamburg phase. Ridiculous logic!

 

"Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest."

 

Er, wait. Either The Beatles were the most successful, in which rock critics might be blinded by this success, or they were not. This sentence actually contradicts its own argument! It also conflates "commercial success" with being "the greatest" and hence demonstrates the same bias the author is attempting to find in others. This is impossibly bad reasoning.

 

"Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers."

 

This flies in the face of established fact and so requires, at minimum, that the author produce substantial evidence. Of course he provides none at all, since there is none to be had.

 

If it was better written, had a spark of wit, or brought up any new ideas, then this essay might be worth reading, even if its hypothesis is wrong. But it's not even an enjoyable rant. Rather it is suited only to demonstrate how not to construct an essay.

 

The thesis is wrong, by the way. The Beatles were the greatest rock act ever, for the simple reason that they invented the vocabulary and working methods of much of what is now taken to be "rock". There can never be another band to do this, for the moment has passed.


Edited by rparmar - 7/14/13 at 1:35pm
post #69 of 98
That's a very nice post!

As someone who also listens to Jazz and Classical, you are correct. That must be the most dumbest "essay" of all time! I think I lost 10 IQ points just from reading your quotes from the "essay".
post #70 of 98
Essay? My ass! The quintessential "Fool On The Hill."
post #71 of 98

I didn't grow up with them, so I have trouble seeing what the big deal is with them. I didn't become a fan until recently and even then, I'm best off with like a top 20 or so of theirs.

 

Their history is always fun to read about, but the music is just another part of my library. I imagine growing up in the 60's, they would be a much bigger deal.

post #72 of 98

Today a band arrives on the  scene becomes famous for a year  or two and then fades away. Its all part of continual merchanization of them. Back then 50/60 a singer or a group were the "spirit "of the times" its hard to explain if you have never felt being part of an era that was ROCK-N-ROLL[50s] or the 60s "FLOWER POWER" and all that it represented it felt you were a part of them too as they expressed the feelings of the times. You felt it round about you as if it was real. Look at John Lennon when he played in Canada some Americans said quote " just say the word and we  will revolt"--he didn't but you can see how it got to you. Or the marches by ex Vietnam vets  along with Hippies against the Vietnam war.  And they WON. Try doing that now and you would be shot/called a terrorist/ or disloyal to your country and jailed.-  That's why people felt more freer then.You could actually FEEL the atmosphere of those times. Sadly all gone now. So its not easy for someone who is young to understand how people linked groups/ singers with a change of state. 


Edited by duncan1 - 7/30/13 at 2:32pm
post #73 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan1 View Post

Today a band arrives on the  scene becomes famous for a year  or two and then fades away. Its all part of continual merchanization of them. Back then 50/60 a singer or a group were the "spirit "of the times" its hard to explain if you have never felt being part of an era that was ROCK-N-ROLL[50s] or the 60s "FLOWER POWER" and all that it represented it felt you were a part of them too as they expressed the feelings of the times. You felt it round about you as if it was real. Look at John Lennon when he played in Canada some Americans said quote " just say the word and we  will revolt"--he didn't but you can see how it got to you. Or the marches by ex Vietnam vets  along with Hippies against the Vietnam war.  And they WON. Try doing that now and you would be shot/called a terrorist/ or disloyal to your country and jailed.-  That's why people felt more freer then.You could actually FEEL the atmosphere of those times. Sadly all gone now. So its not easy for someone who is young to understand how people linked groups/ singers with a change of state. 

 

I dig this. Insightful. 

post #74 of 98

To really understand The Beatles music it is essential to listen to the albums in their entirety. 

post #75 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUMAY408 View Post

To really understand The Beatles music it is essential to listen to the albums in their entirety. 

 

and also place their entire discography in a broader context, particular regarding what came after...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › THE BEATLES ARE OVERRATED