[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not one Beatles album on the top 100??? Some of their albums are my all time favorites across all genres, let alone limiting to Pop/Rock/Soul.

It seems that for an amazing assortment of people under the age of 30, and especially for those under the age of 12, The Beatles have apparently become an irrelevant footnote in the history of rock/pop. Although I had once grown tired of this increasingly prevalent attitude here on Head-Fi, I now find it to be rather amusing; sad, but amusing nonetheless.

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainy /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMHO, this list is no good. There are a lot of albums that are hardly better than average rock/pop album of 60s.

Well, whatever...but it's HIS list. If you want to start your own thread with your own list, by all means go ahead. Hopefully, nobody will post similarly in your thread. I mean, it's one thing to say "hey, what about...", but jeez!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainy /img/forum/go_quote.gif * all beatles out of top 100. They belong in top 1000.

Well, this ought to be interesting...

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would definitely add at least one Pet Shop Boys album in top 90, maybe even two - Very and Bilingual. A few Saint Etienne albums belong to top 40 - 'So Tough' and 'Foxbase Alpha', at the very least, maybe more. I should listen to them more. Cranberries - first album should be in top 60s.

Hmmm...so no Beatles in the top 1,000, but....

I'm reminded of an old saying that goes something like "they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

Oh well, everyone has their opinion...and I'm reminded of an old saying about THAT too.

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif It seems that for an amazing assortment of people under the age of 30, and especially for those under the age of 12, The Beatles have apparently become an irrelevant footnote in the history of rock/pop. Although I had once grown tired of this increasingly prevalent attitude here on Head-Fi, I now find it to be rather amusing; sad, but amusing nonetheless.

Well Wayne, it's in part because the Beatles are such an easy target. It's sort of like a new wine taster who sneers at old school wines because he gets attention and thinks it imparts a certain brilliance to his opinions.

 

[jsaliga]

Not that lists such as this are important to me personally, but I am surprised to see a list like this include popular music and exclude the likes of Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett (neither were jazz singers).

--Jerome

 

[DavidMahler]

You cannot exclude the Beatles from a list where they are the most important and greatest exponent of the genre.......thats an objective fact.....the beatles are the most important artist in the history of Pop Rock music. I can list probably 30 facts as to why but you don't need me to waste my time.

 

[rainy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif It seems that for an amazing assortment of people under the age of 30, and especially for those under the age of 12, The Beatles have apparently become an irrelevant footnote in the history of rock/pop. Although I had once grown tired of this increasingly prevalent attitude here on Head-Fi, I now find it to be rather amusing; sad, but amusing nonetheless.

I would not call them an irrelevant footnote. They are a relevant footnote. But a footnote nonetheless.

 

[rainy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, whatever...but it's HIS list. If you want to start your own thread with your own list, by all means go ahead. Hopefully, nobody will post similarly in your thread. I mean, it's one thing to say "hey, what about...", but jeez!! Well, this ought to be interesting... Hmmm...so no Beatles in the top 1,000, but.... I'm reminded of an old saying that goes something like "they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Oh well, everyone has their opinion...and I'm reminded of an old saying about THAT too.

I apologize to DavidMahler if my comment sounded too harsh. From my point of view, I was just stating the fact - that as a list of best pop and rock albums, in my _humble_ opinion, it is not good, i.e. it does not list anything close to the best 100 pop and rock albums, even allowing for variation in taste.

By the way, you got me wrong - I said there _are_ Beatles in top 1000, just not in top 100. I do like that Cranberries album better than any Beatles album but overall Beatles catalogue is more impressive than total output of Cranberries. They just did a good job on that one first album, which is something that happens too often .

 

[rainy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well Wayne, it's in part because the Beatles are such an easy target. It's sort of like a new wine taster who sneers at old school wines because he gets attention and thinks it imparts a certain brilliance to his opinions.

Beatles are an easy target for this very reason but many famous and highly regarded artists are also an easy target for the same very reason. And yet it is only Beatles' music that I find repugnant. Oh no! Could it be that they are just grossly overrated?

 

[rainy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif You cannot exclude the Beatles from a list where they are the most important and greatest exponent of the genre.......thats an objective fact.....the beatles are the most important artist in the history of Pop Rock music. I can list probably 30 facts as to why but you don't need me to waste my time.

They may be the most important and greatest exponent of the genre - I can't argue with that because I'm not entirely clear on what it means to be an exponent of a genre. I'll take your word for it. But I don't feel their music (i.e. their songs, poetry) stack up well against bands like the Byrds (I forgot to add 'Younger than yesterday' to the list), Family (I forgot to add them to top 100 list, too), and the others I mentioned before. If all of these were stricken from existance, why, the fab four might just end up at the top . Again, I don't mean to disrespect your opinion in any way. I think you're way off just like I am sure I'm off in some instances in my own list. For example, I know that I overrate Floydsters because I'm a fan boy. Early Genesis also did some awful music, but I still tend to like them.

But I've listened to Beatles a lot. I've listened to each of their best albums at least a few dozen times. And my verdict is this: they are quite simply, uh, not that good at all.

It's interesting and telling that Beatles' fans have to resort to imply that I'm 12 year old or that Beatles are a particularly easy target (and Rolling Stones are not? and Dylan isn't? and Floydsters aren't?). Methinks somebody can't handle the subjective truth .

 

[TimJo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif It seems that for an amazing assortment of people under the age of 30, and especially for those under the age of 12, The Beatles have apparently become an irrelevant footnote in the history of rock/pop.

I know what you mean. Sometimes I end up feeling like an old fart because I grew up with the Beatles, but I really don't feel that old.

I think that's why I relate to Mike Cooley's lyric on the latest Drive-By Truckers album

Caught between a generation dying from its habits,
and another thinking rock and roll was new
Till the pawn shops were packed like a backstage party,
hanging full of pointy ugly cheap guitars
And the young'uns all turn to karaoke,
hanging all they're wishes upon disregarded stars

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainy /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's interesting and telling that Beatles' fans have to resort to imply that I'm 12 year old or that Beatles are a particularly easy target (and Rolling Stones are not? and Dylan isn't? and Floydsters aren't?). Methinks somebody can't handle the subjective truth .

Well, it's not exactly that...

It's that, when someone makes the laughable-on-its-face assertion that NOT EVEN ONE Beatles album belongs in the top 100 of the top of genre in rock/pop/soul, but that Pet Shop Boys, Saint Etienne, and the Cranberries do, well, what more to say (other than "you forgot They Might Be Giants"). I mean, can you blame anyone for perhaps wrongly concluding that you might be 12?

I think we ALL get it...you don't like the Beatles. In YOUR OPINION they don't measure up. Folks do tend to wonder, though, about the motive of folks who make a point to take a shot at the Beatles. In my opinion and experience, most of those folks who make a point of being particularly vocal WRT this particular band do so because they confuse the profound and the outrageous.

Now, maybe that's not you...but that's where the 12 year old comment has its genesis. It's just tiresome because so many lately who know so little go to so much effort to make just that point...and it's typically an attention-getting strategy.

I have a buddy who absolutely HATES the Beatles. That said, he DOES understand (and even appreciate) their place in musical history, and the importance of their work. This much is acknowledged repeatedly in interviews with so many different musicians who followed - many of whom would surely find a place on your own personal list.

That is to say, it's one thing to say you don't like their music. It's another entirely when someone loudly mocks them...that just makes the individual in question look like an opinionated fool.

 

[DavidMahler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainy /img/forum/go_quote.gif They may be the most important and greatest exponent of the genre - I can't argue with that because I'm not entirely clear on what it means to be an exponent of a genre. I'll take your word for it. But I don't feel their music (i.e. their songs, poetry) stack up well against bands like the Byrds (I forgot to add 'Younger than yesterday' to the list), Family (I forgot to add them to top 100 list, too), and the others I mentioned before. If all of these were stricken from existance, why, the fab four might just end up at the top . Again, I don't mean to disrespect your opinion in any way. I think you're way off just like I am sure I'm off in some instances in my own list. For example, I know that I overrate Floydsters because I'm a fan boy. Early Genesis also did some awful music, but I still tend to like them. But I've listened to Beatles a lot. I've listened to each of their best albums at least a few dozen times. And my verdict is this: they are quite simply, uh, not that good at all. It's interesting and telling that Beatles' fans have to resort to imply that I'm 12 year old or that Beatles are a particularly easy target (and Rolling Stones are not? and Dylan isn't? and Floydsters aren't?). Methinks somebody can't handle the subjective truth .

I've actually had to defend Dylan, the Stones and Floyd far more often than I do the Beatles. Very few people question the Beatles' importance and their place as the greatest in the genre. I'm actually convinced that the fact that you think there shouldn't be a single Beatles album in the top 100 but that the Cranberries belong there in their place has a lot to do with your age.......as you grow older I believe the Beatles subtle complexities will become interesting to you. The Byrds wrote good songs as you say, but most of their great songs were just Dylan songs adapted to sound like the Beatles....a cool concept but neither as great as Dylan or the Beatles. The Stones are a great band, but they were hardly innovative in comparison to The Beatles. Floyd is great, they are the masters of the concept album, but if you take the best Floyd songs individually and put them up against the best Beatle songs, I don't think the majority of listeners would even consider Floyd as the winner there. Rainy you said in a previous thread that you are not aware of the Beatle song In My Life. In that case, you can't particularly judge the Beatles because that is a pivotal song and the chance that you are vastly familiar with other great songs that are not the commercial Beatles 1 stuff, is very slim...I think you should take out Rubber Soul if you have it, and listen to it, listen to Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album and Abbey Road..........that will take about 4 hours........after you're done listening post on this thread and see if you have any new revelations.

 

[rainy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, it's not exactly that... It's that, when someone makes the laughable-on-its-face assertion that NOT EVEN ONE Beatles album belongs in the top 100 of the top of genre in rock/pop/soul, but that Pet Shop Boys, Saint Etienne, and the Cranberries do, well, what more to say (other than "you forgot They Might Be Giants"). I mean, can you blame anyone for perhaps wrongly concluding that you might be 12? I think we ALL get it...you don't like the Beatles. In YOUR OPINION they don't measure up. Folks do tend to wonder, though, about the motive of folks who make a point to take a shot at the Beatles. In my opinion and experience, most of those folks who make a point of being particularly vocal WRT this particular band do so because they confuse the profound and the outrageous. Now, maybe that's not you...but that's where the 12 year old comment has its genesis. It's just tiresome because so many lately who know so little go to so much effort to make just that point...and it's typically an attention-getting strategy. I have a buddy who absolutely HATES the Beatles. That said, he DOES understand (and even appreciate) their place in musical history, and the importance of their work. This much is acknowledged repeatedly in interviews with so many different musicians who followed - many of whom would surely find a place on your own personal list. That is to say, it's one thing to say you don't like their music. It's another entirely when someone loudly mocks them...that just makes the individual in question look like an opinionated fool.

I haven't been on musical discussion forums before so I've never read anyone saying either good or bad things about Beatles. In another thread I mentioned that I don't like Beatles in an off-hand way and then we talked about them a bit with DavidMahler. Then I found this thread. To me, the issue is that Beatles stick out like a sore thumb among the list. That's why I had to mock them a bit . If there were a couple albums near the end I wouldn't even mind at all - I would not have them there but I would not mock, either.

I obviously don't feel that it's an attention-getting strategy for me. I first got the best Beatles albums (i.e. last ~7) about 8 years ago. I've listened to them quite a bit and never liked them. In fact, I have some respect for them on account of inventiveness and technique, but I could never enjoy them in the least bit, except for one early song, the name of it escapes me at the moment, but it's the one with a trumpet in it - I believe they only had one early song with a trumpet. Anyway..

The reason I don't have them in top 100, not one single album is actually very simple. I can find a couple hundred albums by other bands (maybe 300-400, it's hard to say from the top of my head), that I like much better musically than Beatles.

I can appreciate that they were groundbreaking at the time, that they were a " teen mania " band and then they went on to a more complex and sophisticated sound, and that was unusual, perhaps singular, occurence.

However - and this is a crucial point - when I listen to music, I listen to music and that's the end of it. We argued about the same thing with DavidMahler in another thread - I do no ascribe any significance to the band's " grand standing in the whole history of music with a capital M ". I quite simply listen one song after another and tell myself whether it's better than another one, and I may not even know what year it was made in or who followed what.

I guess the better way to explain it is this: imagine that you are asking yourself " which song will be more enjoyable for me to hear right now? ". You will not answer " song A because it was written in 1965 and is therefore more groundbreaking than song B, made in 1975 ". I look at musicality, poetry, recording quality.

I'm particularly vocal about Beatles than other bands that I find overrated merely because they are, to me, more overrated than other bands. Nothing personal. If in 10 years Pet Shop Boys are more overrated (which of course will never happen), then I would mock them just as much.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can appreciate that they were groundbreaking at the time, that they were a " teen mania " band and then they went on to a more complex and sophisticated sound, and that was unusual, perhaps singular, occurence.

Their teen bopper fame definitely boosted them forward, but what they produced after they got sick of the fame and went to the studio is what makes them so great. They have recorded some of the finest melodies, vocals, and transitions in the history of music IMO. Popularity or not, their music is incredible.



Quote:

Originally Posted by rainy /img/forum/go_quote.gif However - and this is a crucial point - when I listen to music, I listen to music and that's the end of it.

x2

 

[rainy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've actually had to defend Dylan, the Stones and Floyd far more often than I do the Beatles. Very few people question the Beatles' importance and their place as the greatest in the genre. I'm actually convinced that the fact that you think there shouldn't be a single Beatles album in the top 100 but that the Cranberries belong there in their place has a lot to do with your age.......as you grow older I believe the Beatles subtle complexities will become interesting to you. The Byrds wrote good songs as you say, but most of their great songs were just Dylan songs adapted to sound like the Beatles....a cool concept but neither as great as Dylan or the Beatles. The Stones are a great band, but they were hardly innovative in comparison to The Beatles. Floyd is great, they are the masters of the concept album, but if you take the best Floyd songs individually and put them up against the best Beatle songs, I don't think the majority of listeners would even consider Floyd as the winner there. Rainy you said in a previous thread that you are not aware of the Beatle song In My Life. In that case, you can't particularly judge the Beatles because that is a pivotal song and the chance that you are vastly familiar with other great songs that are not the commercial Beatles 1 stuff, is very slim...I think you should take out Rubber Soul if you have it, and listen to it, listen to Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album and Abbey Road..........that will take about 4 hours........after you're done listening post on this thread and see if you have any new revelations.

Actually I did listen to Magical Mystery Tour after we talked about them in the other thread. It's not any better than I remembered it. (In fact, I was hoping that with better headphones I will appreciate it more - I did not). If "In my life" is on one of these albums, I have heard it many times, it didn't capture my attention before. As for my age, I am old enough not to turn my musical taste into semi-personal attacks like others here (I know - not you), who are, I assume, older than me in biological years. As I mentioned before, I listened to the last ~7 albums by Beatles a few dozen times for each album, at the very least.

I don't find arguments from popularity convincing. Yep - not even from enduring popularity. If people can be deluded for a short period of time, I don't see why it isn't possible to be deluded for a much longer period. My theory - which I suspect you won't care for - is that Beatles were extremely good at pretending to make good music. Perhaps the best - at that - in history of mankind. In regard to popularity, you might also consider that Beatles songs are perfectly conceived to sing along to when they play on the radio - lyrics are clearly articulated, easy to sing, to remember, a few lines are repeated and by the end of song you can join in even if you are hearing it for the first time. I would assign a good chunk of popularity to their fondness for teary sentimentality which was always popular with folks. A genuine sadness such as found in the best of Byrds songs (Thoughts and Words, etc) was not.

But this is a moot point - for whatever reason Beatles were and are popular and I don't see how this would change my estimation of them. If it did, then, why, my estimation of music would go up and down with every poll - now we can't have that, can we?

Age argument can be turned around just as easily, but what's the point?

I would not say that Byrds songs were adapted to sound like the Beatles. Thankfully!

The Rolling Stones were not as inventive as Beatles but the thing here, inventiveness is only part of the picture. I think Beatles fared much better when they did songs that (at least now) don't sound very inventive, e.g. Blackbird.

I'm not a huge fan of 'Stones or Byrds for that matter. I respect their efforts more and I think they did a better job and they're much more of a genuine music deal than fab four, and are not overrated.

I don't know why everyone picks on Cranberries, that one album is quite good. It's also just one out of a hundred. What is the point of the argument, to sneak one Beatles album in at place #99? Heheh. Too late anyway, Family pushed out Cranberries and Pet Shop Boys. I didn't even count the albums I listed, I think there were fewer than a hundred, in fact much fewer.

To oblige you folks I might stretch things a bit and take one Beatles album and " push it up " at the end of the hundred.. BUT! The truth! What about the truth I ask? The Truth will suffer .