Can We Get Another Beatles thread?

p0mt3 wrote: 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. It's diverse, but everything is still Beatles, which is why I simply do not enjoy it. Wish I could, really! 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. No, because I do not believe it's something worth giving credit. That's simply my standpoint on it; and I expect millions of people to disagree with me. 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. I create my music with the expectation and understanding that there will be plenty of people who would hate it and those who would stomp all over it. It doesn't deter me. 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. 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. By "Rock 'n' Roll", I talk mostly of the British Invasion and what was to follow---The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, and many others which people now associate with 1960s and 1970s rock music at its bare form. I am not referring to Elvis or anything related. I do agree that the pre-1960s "rock" scene was dreadful though. I simply cannot stand the Beatles either or what they brought with them, no matter what they tried to do or whom they influenced. I don't care. I choose not to respect them because they did nothing that deems worthy of my respect---they have attained a cult-like following of people established basically on nothing musically revolutionary, no matter how much importance they had in a historical aspect. It's like saying I have to respect all classical composers or some guy in Africa in 500B.C. who invented a drum out of animal skins because they laid the way for music to come. That's stupid. I don't respect or enjoy Mozart or Bob Dylan either (don't like Dylan much like you do); but there are musicians and bands that do prove themselves worthy of respect for truly accomplishing something that I deem to be groundbreaking. That's up to every individual and their own definitions of groundbreaking and respect. 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 Thr 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 how 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. I see where you're coming from, but in the end, it doesn't matter to me. I won't bring myself to respect a band that I see as simply being a product of all the right lucky conditions, with minimal musical talent, and only an impact that relies entirely on historical significance. (I covered part of this in my previous blob) I still think you're oversimplifying and overestimating their impact, but it's irrelevant. We can agree to disagree---they're simply subjective perspectives on music.

Edited by MovingPictures07 - November 19 2009 at 22:19

p0mt3 wrote: ^ Sorry, Alex. I made changes to my post during your reply. You might want update your answers slightly if you want to address everything I said. Or not. lol

Bah, screw that.

Alright, then. I'll give my closing comments now.

In order to overestimate something, it would have to involve an actual estimation of something yet to happen. Since we all know how big an impact The Beatles had, I don't think there's any question on that.

Perhaps you meant to say that I have overrated them. That may be true, but keep in mind The Bealtes are far from my favorite band. I just happen to have them as my 'forum theme' right now because the mono remasters got me back into the mood for them a lot lately. I'm trying to be fair, here, honestly. As far as I know everything I said involving all the firsts they did and so forth was true. I didn't embellish anything to my knowlege.

Indeed, let us be fair. At least give me this much; If I am overstating their influence, you are certainly understating their talent. I'm not talking about technical ability, here. I'm talking about the ability to compose songs. It's all that the and the rest of the world knew at the time, and they were damn good at it, regardless of whether or not it fits your personal taste.


Edited by p0mt3 - November 19 2009 at 22:29

p0mt3 wrote: Alright, then. I'll give my closing comments now. In order to overestimate something, it would have to involve an actual estimation of something yet to happen. Since we all know how big an impact The Beatles had, I don't think there's any question on that. Perhaps you meant to say that I have overrated them. That may be true, but keep in mind The Bealtes are far from my favorite band. I just happen to have them as my 'forum theme' right now because the mono remasters got me back into the mood for them a lot lately. I'm trying to be fair, here, honestly. As far as I know everything I said involving all the firsts they did and so forth was true. I didn't embellish anything to my knowlege. Indeed, let us be fair. At least give me this much; If I am overstating their influence, you are certainly understating their talent. I'm not talking about technical ability, here. I'm talking about the ability to compose songs. It's all that the and the rest of the world knew at the time, and they were damn good at it, regardless of whether or not it fits your personal taste.

I recognized that they were good at churning out songs exactly that the rest of the world wanted to hear, but I wouldn't call that talent.

Their more experimental works are perhaps the only slight exceptions, most notably Revolution 9 (which is my favorite Beatles song... if there is such a thing ).

It's simply frustrating beyond anything else that their influence and talent are so heavily overstated by everyone. To an extent, I agree with you; you're being reasonable in most of your arguments and points. I just don't fully agree. And I personally fail to see any value in practically anything they ever made, but that's my take on it. I realize I'm in a minority.

MovingPictures07 wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Alright, then. I'll give my closing comments now. In order to overestimate something, it would have to involve an actual estimation of something yet to happen. Since we all know how big an impact The Beatles had, I don't think there's any question on that. Perhaps you meant to say that I have overrated them. That may be true, but keep in mind The Bealtes are far from my favorite band. I just happen to have them as my 'forum theme' right now because the mono remasters got me back into the mood for them a lot lately. I'm trying to be fair, here, honestly. As far as I know everything I said involving all the firsts they did and so forth was true. I didn't embellish anything to my knowlege. Indeed, let us be fair. At least give me this much; If I am overstating their influence, you are certainly understating their talent. I'm not talking about technical ability, here. I'm talking about the ability to compose songs. It's all that the and the rest of the world knew at the time, and they were damn good at it, regardless of whether or not it fits your personal taste. I recognized that they were good at churning out songs exactly that the rest of the world wanted to hear, but I wouldn't call that talent. Their more experimental works are perhaps the only slight exceptions, most notably Revolution 9 (which is my favorite Beatles song... if there is such a thing ). It's simply frustrating beyond anything else that their influence and talent are so heavily overstated by everyone. To an extent, I agree with you; you're being reasonable in most of your arguments and points. I just don't fully agree. And I personally fail to see any value in practically anything they ever made, but that's my take on it. I realize I'm in a minority.

It's okay. I believe we agree more than we disagree when it comes to music.

Although I have a sneakin' suspicion that you aren't a Tool fan, either. Tool, unlike The Beatles, ARE in fact my favorite band. But oh well, I can forgive that stuff . . . maybe.

p0mt3 wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Alright, then. I'll give my closing comments now. In order to overestimate something, it would have to involve an actual estimation of something yet to happen. Since we all know how big an impact The Beatles had, I don't think there's any question on that. Perhaps you meant to say that I have overrated them. That may be true, but keep in mind The Bealtes are far from my favorite band. I just happen to have them as my 'forum theme' right now because the mono remasters got me back into the mood for them a lot lately. I'm trying to be fair, here, honestly. As far as I know everything I said involving all the firsts they did and so forth was true. I didn't embellish anything to my knowlege. Indeed, let us be fair. At least give me this much; If I am overstating their influence, you are certainly understating their talent. I'm not talking about technical ability, here. I'm talking about the ability to compose songs. It's all that the and the rest of the world knew at the time, and they were damn good at it, regardless of whether or not it fits your personal taste. I recognized that they were good at churning out songs exactly that the rest of the world wanted to hear, but I wouldn't call that talent. Their more experimental works are perhaps the only slight exceptions, most notably Revolution 9 (which is my favorite Beatles song... if there is such a thing ). It's simply frustrating beyond anything else that their influence and talent are so heavily overstated by everyone. To an extent, I agree with you; you're being reasonable in most of your arguments and points. I just don't fully agree. And I personally fail to see any value in practically anything they ever made, but that's my take on it. I realize I'm in a minority. It's okay. I believe we agree more than we disagree when it comes to music. Although I have a sneakin' suspicion that you aren't a Tool fan, either. Tool, unlike The Beatles, ARE in fact my favorite band. But oh well, I can forgive that stuff . . . maybe.

Tool aren't bad. I really like parts of Lateralus, but I feel the album is too long and I have to be in the right mood for it. Haven't had as much success with other albums.

A craftsman is one who is skilled in a particular craft. A talent is a skill. Could you give me your definition of talent? 

jammun wrote: I think there is underestimation of what The Beatles brought to the table as a commercial enterprise, which had a huge bearing on all rock.   At least here in the U.S., record companies were interested in making $$.  Maybe the Commies in the UK were different   There was in fact little interest in The Beatles first time around, hence that Veejay album.  However when Capitol picked up the band, well Katie bar the door!  Suddenly, $$ were to be had in almost unprecendented amounts.    Does anyone really think that without The Beatles any of the British Invasion bands would be known outside their home country, maybe even city?  I don't know, but once The Beatles were on ol' Ed Sullivan and the album started selling, well suddenly Stones/Kinks/Animals/Yardbirds and even Billy J and Gerry were everywhere.  Does anyone really think that if Billy J and them Dakotas had appeared on ol' Ed Sullivan and sang Bad to Me that rock history would have changed?  Just askin'.      After Meet The Beatles, record companies were falling all over themselves to sign British Invasion bands.  Potential $$ to be made.  (We see this all throughout rock history...L.A. bands, S.F. bands, Seattle grunge bands, and so on, and eventually the wheat gets separated from the chaff.)   What was nice about the '60s is that there was potentially so much $$ to be made, that the record companies were willing to take a chance on virtually any band.  (If you do not believe this, listen to Nuggets.)  And some record took a chance on some bands that were playing some very weird music.  Does anyone really think that without The Beatles commercial success The Piper At The Gates of Dawn would have ever been released?  Which is of course one of the unfortunate things about the current era, as the majors have no interest in funding anything interesting.  Eh, now and again you get Capitol picking up The Decemberists, which is an anomoly.   I'm sure I've said this before, probably in response to a Beatles thread:   Go pick up a copy of American Graffiti soundtrack.  Listen to the whole thing.  Now go pick up those first few Beatles albums and listen to them.  If you don't hear the absolute reinvention of all that came before, maybe your ears need some fine tuning.

jammun, I agree with you, but as you can see from my previous posts, I have already brought up that argument to Alex, and he chooses to not hear me.


Edited by p0mt3 - November 19 2009 at 22:47

Equality 7-2521 wrote: A craftsman is one who is skilled in a particular craft. A talent is a skill. Could you give me your definition of talent?  I think it takes something more than effort since no popular band has obtained their notoriety and I'm sure many have worked as hard.

It is possible to be skilled in a particular craft that is seemed to be full of value by many and worthless by few.

Just because a craftsman spends years making something does not necessitate that it is full of intrinsic value or importance. And that is beyond what the Beatles did; they crafted something which is easily digestible, recognizable, and memorable.

Why would anyone want their notoriety?

MovingPictures07 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: A craftsman is one who is skilled in a particular craft. A talent is a skill. Could you give me your definition of talent?  I think it takes something more than effort since no popular band has obtained their notoriety and I'm sure many have worked as hard. It is possible to be skilled in a particular craft that is seemed to be full of value by many and worthless by few. Just because a craftsman spends years making something does not necessitate that it is full of intrinsic value or importance. And that is beyond what the Beatles did; they crafted something which is easily digestible, recognizable, and memorable. Why would anyone want their notoriety?