Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge - Can We Get Another Beatles thread?

Print Page | Close Window

Can We Get Another Beatles thread?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62973
Printed Date: June 11 2024 at 08:59
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Can We Get Another Beatles thread?

Posted By: Xanthous
Subject: Can We Get Another Beatles thread?
Date Posted: November 18 2009 at 21:23

Seriously, I've seen around five of them on the first two pages. It seems wherever I go I cannot get away from them. Every time I go to a music store, They get their own section. I go to my friends house, they have to put on a Beatles LP. I can't even get away from it at school. My Social Studies plays the stuff when we're doing our work.

I guess my question is, why do people feel compelled to talk about/ worship the Beatles? I understand their music was a major influence on later Rock acts but come on. Frankly, I don't see much merit in any of their work pre-65 and the later output still isn't as great as people have told me. Can someone just please explain to me the bizarre idol worship that centralizes around these musical figures?

Replies:

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 18 2009 at 21:38

Their music is good enough to warrant it.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 18 2009 at 21:58

I despise the Beatles with an absolutely unmatched passion, so I know how you feel. I have no answer to this question; I've also wondered it myself.

I feel about them with the same intensity that Rico feels about Kraftwerk. I'd rather listen to 99% of other music; but if other people like it, whatever.

-------------

Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: November 18 2009 at 22:04

Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason your Social Studies plays it? Why do people feel compelled to talk about any musicians?

-------------
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 18 2009 at 22:07

I heard their music was written by aliens

Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: November 18 2009 at 22:10

Atavachron wrote:

I heard their music was written by aliens

Maybe we should have looked into that before we added them to the site.

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 18 2009 at 22:15

it's chariots of the gods, man

Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: November 18 2009 at 22:22

"Chariot of the Gods" Lennon/McCartney rare B side and the first link to their alien knowledge and use of backward messages, Paul is dead ... now he isn't ... helter skelter, Charlie Manson, Beach Boys, Brian Wilson. Check the figures on Sgt Peppers, you can see Hendrix and Marilyn, but where is Brian Wilson?!?!?

Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 18 2009 at 22:22

If people didn't worship them I would like them more.

Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: November 18 2009 at 22:31

George Martin was a pretty talented guy and The Beatles had some other talented people involved with them to get them recognition.

-------------
Just a music fan passing through trying to fill some void. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Various music I am into now: a youtube playlist

Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 02:06

I first heard the Beatles in 1962 when "Love Me Do" came over on our old radio - every time the Beatles came on again my Mother would call me to listen.

I was fairly interested in Rock'n'Roll before that moment - Lonnie Donegan, Buddy Holly, Perry Como, many hits of the day, but this group was different, i became obsessed with every scrap of material i could find about the Beatles. By 1963 there were other people just as keen as me, everyone at school, the Queen wanted to meet them, the whole of the USA wanted to meet them...it was crazy.

Why all this adulation for a band that had struggled for years to get any kind of recognition, or even a recording contract..? Answer - QUALITY, PERSONALITY, ORIGINALITY.

There will never be another Beatles in my lifetime, they were in the right place at the right time and they were GOOD - the reason new generations of people still love them is because they were more than good, they were brilliant - good songs, good music, good producer - everything was right, they led the field for years and are still influential.

After all these years the magic is still there, i still play their records occasionally, they are still the greatest...

so there...

-------------

Prog Archives Tour Van

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 02:19

I don't understand how some people can literally DESPISE The Beatles as much as they do. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their music. Don't like them? Don't listen to them, but when you're out and about and/or at a friend's house, chances are you're going to hear their music from time to time, because like it or not, the majority of people like them.

I mean, I personally don't like Fall Out Boy, but they are very popular right now, so I do hear their tunes playing in stores occasionally. Yet you don't see me creating a whole thread dedicated to my dislike of them. Nor do I question why somebody else would listen to them. The way I see it, there's room enough for everybody in the music world.

I swear, have The Beatles become the new Dream Theater of these forums due to the remastered releases? Grow up, folks.

Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 04:01

Xanthous wrote:

Seriously, I've seen around five of them on the first two pages. It seems wherever I go I cannot get away from them. Every time I go to a music store, They get their own section. I go to my friends house, they have to put on a Beatles LP. I can't even get away from it at school. My Social Studies plays the stuff when we're doing our work.

If your concern is the number of threads about the Beatles, it would probably have been better to add your thoughts to an existing thread.

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 04:29

Easy Livin wrote:

If your concern is the number of threads about the Beatles, it would probably have been better to add your thoughts to an existing thread.

Classic.

Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 05:53

MovingPictures07 wrote:

I despise the Beatles with an absolutely unmatched passion, so I know how you feel. I have no answer to this question; I've also wondered it myself.

I feel about them with the same intensity that Rico feels about Kraftwerk. I'd rather listen to 99% of other music; but if other people like it, whatever.

Although I don't doubt your sincerity here, it strikes me as an odd sentiment. The Beatles are certainly not above revisionist criticism certainly, and yes, their uber slavish fans who cannot see past the year they split up are just both tiresome and plain vanilla sad BUT:

They single handedly created the platform from which musicians get to write and perform their own material (we take this for granted now) and experiment with equipment, sounds and compositional ideas hitherto deemed 'unviable' in the music industry. Although you could argue that such progression was inevitable in the fullness of time without their presence, I fear it would have taken much, much longer and we would have had to wait for as talented and successful a group (unlikely) to appear before the doors of Prog were finally opened.

-------------

Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 06:30

There are many reasone for being a Beatles fan (I'm one of them), but the main reason for me is that every single song they made had a fantastic melody. Might seem simplistic, but there's so much of the opposite around, that it warrents an extra mention.

These guys made a strong song melody and then arranged the rest around it.

I have a personal peeve with a lot of bands these days (Flower Kings, I'm looking at you), where someone just takes a number of chords, assembles them in arbitrary order, gives them a rhythm, then takes a few of those chords out, strategically replaces them with ones that sound a bit off, puts in an extra beat here and there, and then...wasn't there something else? Oh yes, they'll probably have to sing something as well. No idea what and how, but just take a few phrases, string them together meaninglessly (don't worry, they'll be interpreted in thousands of different ways) and what....? Melody? What was that again? Oh yes. Well, I dunno, just sing something. Anything at all. You don't know what? Well, just sing along to the chords. There you go, magic!

Hm.... just realized, probably the wrong thread, should have gone in Flower Kings Appreciation.

Posted By: SgtPepper67
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 16:25

npjnpj wrote:

There are many reasone for being a Beatles fan (I'm one of them), but the main reason for me is that every single song they made had a fantastic melody. Might seem simplistic, but there's so much of the opposite around, that it warrents an extra mention.

These guys made a strong song melody and then arranged the rest around it.

Hm.... just realized, probably the wrong thread, should have gone in Flower Kings Appreciation.

-------------

In the end the love you take is equal to the love you made...

Posted By: splyu
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 16:49

Uhm, The Beatles invented prog? Not single-handedly obviously but they helped it along big time. Name even one important prog rock band from the 70s that was not influenced by them!

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 17:09

npjnpj wrote:

There are many reasons for being a Beatles fan (I'm one of them), but the main reason for me is that every single song they made had a fantastic melody. Might seem simplistic, but there's so much of the opposite around, that it warrants an extra mention.

These guys made a strong song melody and then arranged the rest around it.

Hm.... just realized, probably the wrong thread, should have gone in Flower Kings Appreciation.

''Every single song'' is a bit off. Need I point out that The Beatles did an Avant-Garde song titled ''Revolution 9''? No melody whatsoever in that. ''Flying'' is an all instrumental track that many oldschool Beatles fans hated due to it's lack of melody. ''The Continuing Story of Bungalo Bill'' is a goofy track not aimed at having a proper melody at all, and is just for fun. The melody for ''Because'' is all over the place, and far from fantastic. ''You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)'' is yet another nonsensical track not aimed at true melody, as is ''Dig It'', and countless others that escape my memory at the moment.

Personally, I don't see what's so wrong with a band like Flower Kings OR The Beatles not having traditional melodies all the time. It's part of what Prog is about, and if you find that worth reprimanding artists over, I have to ask, why do you even listen to this genre of music?

Now, I'm not saying the guys bashing The Beatles are correct, either, but come on! The Beatles are primitive musically compared to all that came after them, and insulting a modern prog act because they can't write a pop song is nonsense and far from the point.

If you want to defend The Beatles, that's fine, I defended them too, but don't compare them to full-on Prog music as of they are somehow more deserving of praise because they can write easily-digestible tunes. It isn't fair or accurate. If Prog had been around before The Beatles, they would have done a lot more Prog stuff than they did; because they liked being creative and unusual. Time and circumstance dictated how The Beatles wrote songs; not actual compositional talent.

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 17:09

splyu wrote:

Uhm, The Beatles invented prog? Not single-handedly obviously but they helped it along big time. Name even one important prog rock band from the 70s that was not influenced by them!

Jethro Tull . . .

Posted By: splyu
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 17:17

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.

Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 17:24

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.

Not impossible.
I'm not even sure the early Pink Floyd really dug the Beatles...

Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 17:40

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?

-------------

Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime

Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 17:44

jajaja.... He got us all... he is a beatlemania fan and bring us again into a Beatles thread....!!! nice trick, I will do the same with Dream Theater now and Porcupine Tree...

-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 19:19

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."

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 19:20

CPicard wrote:

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.

Not impossible.
I'm not even sure the early Pink Floyd really dug the Beatles...

They didn't. The Floyd met the Beatles once in Abby Road studios, and not much mutual respect was present at all. They were doing completely different things musically at the time, so why would they consider them an influence? It wasn't until DSotM that Pink Floyd began writing more accessible pop tunes themselves.

Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 19:46

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.

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 20:16

the Beatles impact on prog was crucial creatively but overestimated musically; creatively in presenting - or sometimes just suggesting - what was possible in rock music, along with even less likely and perhaps less obvious candidates as Brian Wilson.. musically, the real influence on prog was music itself, specifically the best of the western world's forms, the timing was just right and the key players, history, and rock itself was ready

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 20:41

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.

-------------

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 20:43

And to add to my post, I don't despise the Beatles simply to go against the flow. I'm pretty open-minded about music and really hate it when I extremely don't like music.

There simply is hardly another band in the world that garners as much dislike as the Beatles for my personal taste, and that's just me. I can't stand the vocals (they just don't sound good to me), and the songs are incredibly bland.

That doesn't mean I don't respect everyone else's right to like them; I'm just sick of seeing them held up as GODS like hardly other musical act is. Like Micah brought up---I really don't like Fall Out Boy much like him, but in contrast to the Beatles, they are not even near the same level of cult fanboyism in the general public across all generations.

-------------

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 21:11

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.

Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 21:13

Well Alex, I think you're right in saying that other bands would have filled in and prog would have happened just fine without the Fabs. As for the songs being bland, taste is subjective, but that's the reason people idolize them over the long haul. The knew how to craft memorable melodies that stick in people's heads. Phenomenal pop/rock songwriting in a simple, short vehicle. They just don't click for you, and that's fine.

They'll be enjoyed in the next century too when 95% of the bands on this site are long forgotten. Smile

-------------

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 21:25

p0mt3 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.

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.

-------------

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 21:27

Finnforest wrote:

Well Alex, I think you're right in saying that other bands would have filled in and prog would have happened just fine without the Fabs. As for the songs being bland, taste is subjective, but that's the reason people idolize them over the long haul. The knew how to craft memorable melodies that stick in people's heads. Phenomenal pop/rock songwriting in a simple, short vehicle. They just don't click for you, and that's fine.

They'll be enjoyed in the next century too when 95% of the bands on this site are long forgotten. Smile

Oh, I'm sure. Doesn't matter to me though what other people listen to. I recognize that their appeal is strong; it just sometimes appalls me how strong it is. It seems almost massive cult-worthy.

-------------

Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 21:32

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.

-------------

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 21:33

Finnforest wrote:

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 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.

That's true, definitely. It's interesting how it all works, really, almost fascinating.

-------------

Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 21:48

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

-------------

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 21:50

Finnforest wrote:

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

Yeah, I figured it was a typo. LOL

-------------

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 21:54

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. Tongue

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:00

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Finnforest wrote:

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

Yeah, I figured it was a typo. LOL

me too, though I love Zep because the music was by far the most important thing

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:17

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. Tongue

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. Wink

-------------

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:19

^ 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

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:20

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. Tongue

-------------

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:22

Oh, I see the one main change you made. Yeah, what they eventually developed into wasn't musically mainstream of the time; but they fit in absolutely perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle with every aspect of the mainstream culture.

-------------

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:26

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.

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:30

MovingPictures07 wrote:

I
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.

Is it simply luck then that all their songs have been commercial juggernauts for the past 4 decades?

If that takes minimal talent I think a lot more people would be massively rich and famous right now. It might be something you would want to look into.

I agree that their influence on the development of popular music is overstated, and that aspect is very independent of them and they should not be judged on them. Let's not go and say they have minimal talent.

I also don't like the right place at the right time argument. You could really say that about anyone's success in any field in history. Doing it is so conjectural anyway. The ideas for Einstein's theory of relativity were already in place so was he just in the right place at the right time? I don't mean to compare the merit of the two, but for either how can you assert that the development would have occurred. And if you're going to do so arbitrarily why can't it be applied to everyone else?

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:33

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. Wink

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 LOL

).

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.

-------------

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:35

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Is it simply luck then that all their songs have been commercial juggernauts for the past 4 decades?

If that takes minimal talent I think a lot more people would be massively rich and famous right now. It might be something you would want to look into.

I wouldn't call creating compositions that are commercial juggernauts "talented". That's taking into account my definition of it; using that, I would say they have "minimal talent". You're just looking at it differently than I am with usage of the word in that regard.

They were at the right place at exactly the right time. Obviously it took effort on their part to create the compositions, there's no denying that.

-------------

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:37

MovingPictures07 wrote:

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. Wink

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 LOL

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

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. Tongue

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:38

It doesn't take talent? Then what exactly does it take to make them?

Since the time-frame is almost a half-century I don't think you can argue simple adherence to the flavor-of-the-week tricks.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:39

p0mt3 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

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. Wink

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 LOL

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

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. Tongue

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.

-------------

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:40

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

It doesn't take talent? Then what exactly does it take to make them?

Since the time-frame is almost a half-century I don't think you can argue simple adherence to the flavor-of-the-week tricks.

It takes effort, not talent. There's a difference. It certainly takes quite a bit of work and craftsmanship to make a song that will appeal to so many different people, but I personally don't find it worthy of being called talent.

-------------

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:43

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.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:44

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:

-------------
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 22:47

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

I'm sure I've said this before, probably in response to a Beatles thread:

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. LOL

Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 23:08

p0mt3 wrote:

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

I'm sure I've said this before, probably in response to a Beatles thread:

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. LOL

Well as I tried to outline, even leaving the music out of it, the influence cannot be denied. The fact that they were an unprecendented commercial success (and lawdy I know over the years I have tended to dismiss those types of bands) allowed musicians with no commercial potential (hmm, that phrase bring Zappa to mind) to actually obtain a recording contract and have their music recorded and distributed by what at the time were major labels. This applies doubly to the early prog bands.

-------------
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 23:09

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?

-------------

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 23:13

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

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.

Uh... isn't that one of my points? They laid the roots for much music to come. That doesn't mean they're good or have any value to me. Why can't people recognize that?

-------------

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 23:19

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.

A definition of talent would still be nice.

Yes an object may be of no worth to some, but that says nothing of the talent required to make it. An elevator to the sun would be of no importance or value, but would obviously take incredible talent to produce.

You're still talking about these songs like they're Top 40 hits gone in a year. Is decades of memorability not worth anything? Easily digestible? What makes their songs easily digestible, but not half the bands in your top 20?

And yes who would want the notoriety of being considered the best and most influential rock/pop songwriters of all time. How silly of me to bring that up.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 23:25

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

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.

A definition of talent would still be nice.

And yes who would want the notoriety of being considered the best and most influential rock/pop songwriters of all time. How silly of me to bring that up.

Alright, I suppose a clear understanding of vocabulary needs to be sorted out. If we define talent by the way you're discussing it, then the Beatles had talent at their particular craft; but it is certainly something which I personally find to be of 0% value whatsoever and I honestly do not find anything special about their songwriting abilities. That's simply an assessment; and why I hesitate to say they had any talent.

Their songs are easily digestible because if you show them to any randomly selected person of the general population---even someone with no musical knowledge whatsoever---chances are that that person will thoroughly enjoy the composition. There's no other band that quite has that same effect; it's the simplification of the music and overall initial attractiveness to most minds.

I wouldn't want it.

-------------

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 23:34

Most people enjoy Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. Just because many people enjoy it doesn't make it easily digestible.

I'm beginning to dislike Henry Cow just because they're your avatar.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 23:40

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Most people enjoy Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. Just because many people enjoy it doesn't make it easily digestible.

Not necessarily. Typically though, and it depends on the target audience you're talking.

I'm beginning to dislike Henry Cow just because they're your avatar.

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

-------------

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 23:43

Well I'll just conclude then by saying you're wrong.

And I wasn't being serious with the avatar thing obviously.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 02:54

MovingPictures07 wrote:

[Their songs are easily digestible because if you show them to any randomly selected person of the general population---even someone with no musical knowledge whatsoever---chances are that that person will thoroughly enjoy the composition. There's no other band that quite has that same effect; it's the simplification of the music and overall initial attractiveness to most minds.

I wouldn't want it.

Simplification is the highest accomplishment of talent/skill/"whatever". Simplification is what separates the genious from the average person. Yes, the Beatles were so good that they distilled somthing that was good into something that was (still is) great.

People often resort to the "simplification argument" saying that's it's so simple that even I could have done the same. If it's that simple why don't others do the same.

Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 06:29

earlyprog wrote:

People often resort to the "simplification argument" saying that's it's so simple that even I could have done the same. If it's that simple why don't others do the same.

A genius is not someone who makes his or her craft as simple as possible for others to understand.

-------------

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 09:19

No sorry we've reached our quota of Beatles threads. Tongue

Me, I don't have much interest in their stuff until Rubber Soul and later. I never go out of my way to listen to it these days because it's been ingrained in my brain, but it's still good stuff.

I have noticed that sometimes you younger farts just don't get the music us older farts revere. LOL

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: splyu
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 12:39

p0mt3 wrote:

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?

Yeah. Obviously that's exactly what I said.

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 13:06

splyu wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

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?

Yeah. Obviously that's exactly what I said.

Well then you're an idiot. I clearly backed up my point with that video I linked to. If you chose not to watch it and stay in your delusion, that's your own problem.

Posted By: halabalushindigus
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 13:10

People play The Beatles music any and everywhere because they are the single-most influential band of the 60's. But that's it. I agree that today they are relatively meaningless, and yes I mean meaningless in the context that music (Pop) radio today is filled with anti-social whatever but it's not an any sense historical. (I cant frekin spell anymore) The Beatles, during their time were a pompous group of english trend-mockers, clever at first, but the drugs and evolution of the sixties raped their mind, like all drugs will do and became a curious enigma in the genre. I don't give a crap anymore, it's true, I dont care. AMERICA

trashed them, like they did all our kids in that stupid freaking war, and by 1970 we were all doomed, crew cuts and all. The BEATLES wre great because ENGLAND was great. What lesson did we really learn from The Beatles? That they didn't really give a care about America. Listen to the way Lennon spoke to the press, as if he was the victim. He knew what he was doing.

But today, yeah, people play the Beatles music and it is stupid.

Lets be thankful to the families who sacrificed their sons and daughters who remind us that their lose is greater than ours. And Be Humble To these families

-------------

assume the power 1586/14.3

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 13:12

^ What?

Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 13:15

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 13:43

Anyway.

The Beatles? Talented bunch whatever your definition. But people do go on about them so.

-------------
Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: splyu
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 13:46

p0mt3 wrote:

splyu wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

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?

Yeah. Obviously that's exactly what I said.

Well then you're an idiot. I clearly backed up my point with that video I linked to. If you chose not to watch it and stay in your delusion, that's your own problem.

I don't even know what to say. LOL

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 14:32

splyu wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

splyu wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

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?

Yeah. Obviously that's exactly what I said.

Well then you're an idiot. I clearly backed up my point with that video I linked to. If you chose not to watch it and stay in your delusion, that's your own problem.

I don't even know what to say. LOL

I know you were being a smart-ass in your last comment. That was obvious. It's still my opinion that you're an idiot.

Posted By: splyu
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 15:08

p0mt3 wrote:

splyu wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

splyu wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

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?

Yeah. Obviously that's exactly what I said.

Well then you're an idiot. I clearly backed up my point with that video I linked to. If you chose not to watch it and stay in your delusion, that's your own problem.

I don't even know what to say. LOL

I know you were being a smart-ass in your last comment. That was obvious. It's still my opinion that you're an idiot.

Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 15:15

splyu wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

splyu wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

splyu wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

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?

Yeah. Obviously that's exactly what I said.

Well then you're an idiot. I clearly backed up my point with that video I linked to. If you chose not to watch it and stay in your delusion, that's your own problem.

I don't even know what to say. LOL

I know you were being a smart-ass in your last comment. That was obvious. It's still my opinion that you're an idiot.

This quote pyramid is starting to be one of those things where if you stare at it long enough, the image begins to move on its own. My girlfriend says I even closed my eyes and started dancing around like a chicken when she told me to.

-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 15:17

splyu wrote:

LOL

Laughing at me doesn't defend your position. You claimed that nobody would be able to name even one important prog act from thr 70s that wasn't influenced by The Beatles. I named one. You said one of the most ignorant and misinformed things I think I've ever heard somebody say on this forum, and now you're trying to wiggle out of it by laughing off my rebuttal.

Posted By: splyu
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 15:27

p0mt3 wrote:

splyu wrote:

LOL

Calm down already. We're not fighting. At least, I'm not. In fact, I'll give you an example of what I asked for myself: Mike Oldfield.

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 15:32

splyu wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

splyu wrote:

LOL

Calm down already. We're not fighting. At least, I'm not. In fact, I'll give you an example of what I asked for myself: Mike Oldfield.

So, you knew your claim was wrong from the beginning, yet you intentionally pretended to not believe my own claim? Okay, now I know EXACTLY where you're coming from, and I don't care much for it.

Posted By: splyu
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 15:39

p0mt3 wrote:

So, you knew your claim was wrong from the beginning, yet you intentionally pretended to not believe my own claim? Okay, now I know EXACTLY where you're coming from, and I don't care much for it.

No, I thought about that later. I don't get why you make so much ado about it.

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 15:44

splyu wrote:

No, I thought about that later. I don't get why you make so much ado about it.

I make so much out of it because I don't like it very much when people throw my statements back in my face as if I have no idea what I'm talking about. If I honestly didn't already know what Ian Anderson said regarding his influences, I wouldn't have said anything to begin with.

So yes, I do bloody take offense to that kind of behavior.

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 15:44

-------------
Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 16:07

why is this thing still open?

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 16:21

Maybe because the thread can still get back on topic?

Are we locking every thread that gets sidetracked now?

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 16:23

The again, the issue has been addressed, and the topic starter's question has been answered many times, so perhaps you're right.

Any nice Admins feel like locking this puppy away?

Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:34

Good idea. The whole thread was self defeating anyway.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 17:38

^ True.

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 18:02

OK then, but you realize we will have reached our quota on Beatles' threads and can never a new one again? Tongue

Leave it open, we need some more endless quote pyramids. LOL

Now 'scuse me while I turn off my mind and float down stream. It is a Friday after all. Should be moved to Just For Fun.

Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 20:26

MovingPictures07 wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

I've read this thread all the way through now and like many others, there's often just one statement that points to the source of negativity about the subject matter at hand. Yes, the poster does not respect the Beatles and has provided his reasons. He might want to address the real underlying issue with his brother though.

-------------

Posted By: halabalushindigus
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 21:07

the guys is right. Tull has no sound that The Beatles did. What "Teacher" sounds like "Day Tripper"?

here's another one ..Mahavishnu Orchestra (don't quite hear the BEATLE'S influence) but on the other hand The Beatles influenced everyone's boot-styles

-------------

assume the power 1586/14.3

Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 21:12

"Say the word, and you'll be free..."

-------------
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.

Posted By: SgtPepper67
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 11:00

ExittheLemming wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

p0mt3 wrote:

The guy is obviously sick of Beatles music because it's the only thing his brother listens too, wich is understandable, but I don't think I can take his opinion objectively.

-------------

In the end the love you take is equal to the love you made...

Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 13:21

p0mt3 wrote:

Jethro Tull . . .

Well according to All Music Guide Jethro Tull lists the Beatles as an influence. Remember Ian is just one member of Tull. Take for example Rush Geddy Lee cites Paul McCartney bass playing as a major influence on him but the rest of the band were not really influenced by the Beatles.

Influenced By

/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:0ifrxqe5ldhe - Bob Dylan
/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gifixqw5ldte - Cream
/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:aifixqr5ldfe - The Yardbirds
/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:0ifixqr5ldhe - Procol Harum
/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gifuxq95ldde - Martin Carthy
/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:jifixqugld6e - Muddy Waters
/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:0ifqxqq5ld6e - The Incredible String Band
/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gvfoxq95ldte - Howlin' Wolf
/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:fifwxqe5ldje - Fairport Convention
/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:aifrxqe5ldte - The Moody Blues
/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hifrxqw5ldse - The Beatles
/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:aifoxqt5ldfe - Rahsaan Roland Kirk

Lastly on this Pink Floyd were influenced by the Beatles. Syd was only listening to Cream and the Beatles according in this interview.

Syd Barrett interview.

The below interview was done during at the BBC Lime Grove studio during a rehearsal for one of the See Emily Play Top Of The Pops appearences. FWIW he said he was happy with it but this was while it was rising in the charts.

Jacques Allemant - "Do you intend to make more instrumental pieces like Interstellar Overdrive?"

Syd - "Certainly, moreover Interstellar Overdrive came out on our first 33 1/3 RPM album in a version different from that on our successful French 45 RPM. It lasts nearly 10 minutes"

J.A. - "Are you picking up any new ideas on electronic music?"

Syd - Rather few. Out ideas generally come from ourselves. At present we are more concerned with our visual aspects of our stage show and we shall soon have new ultra perfect lighting equipment. Our next English tour could well be a new chapter, a little like that used in 'cinerama' itinerary"

J.A. - "Which are your preferred groups?"

Syd - "The Cream and The Beatles without doubt!"

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 13:46

MovingPictures07 wrote:

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.

No band is ever that exacting are they? Wink

ExittheLemming wrote:

I've read this thread all the way through now and like many others, there's often just one statement that points to the source of negativity about the subject matter at hand. Yes, the poster does not respect the Beatles and has provided his reasons. He might want to address the real underlying issue with his brother though.

Speaking as someone with an annoying brother, I can understand that. LOL

Just wait, he will probably get over the Beatles before too long and find something else to annoy you with.
Of course let's face it, being forced to listen to something over and over that just doesn't appeal to you will really drive you up the wall and it probably doesn't matter who they are and how good they are.

Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 13:52

There is one thing about not liking a band which is ok. Then there are people who try to diminish what the Beatles did.

"Well how do you know It would NOT have taken "much, much longer" for rock, Prog, or the development of music as such thereafter to take off".

Well we will never know will we so why diminish what they did. I don't even think there would have been King Crimson if Robert Fripp had not listen to Sgt Pepper

Ok let's not devalue that the Beatles they helped influence songwriting, using the studio as an instrument, albums as a collective unit. They basically made the self contained rock band bigger than the solo artist/producer in rock and roll. They single handedly paved the way for the Kinks, The Who, The Stones, the Yardbirds in America. Without the Beatles there would have been no Byrds and Folk Rock

Pete Townshend of the Who. "

The Beatles brought songwriting into rock and roll "the Beatles brought a complete arsenal of recourses into their songwriting and this broadened what a pop song can do

Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys

"Upon first hearing Rubber Soul in December of 1965, Brian Wilson said, “I really wasn’t quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs…that somehow went together like no album ever made before

Bob Dylan

"They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid. They were pointing the direction music had to go.

BARRY McGUIRE

What were the key motivations behind your switch from the commercial folk you were doing with the New Christy Minstrels to folk-rock?

"But times changed, and I changed, and I didn't feel that way anymore. The Beatles were happening. I think that was probably the main thing. The Beatles just changed the whole world of music.

Basically every early prog rock artist was influenced by the Beatles and Robert Fripp went into rock music after hearing "A Day in the Life". Can basically formed after hearing "I Am the Walrus", ELO BASED THEIR SOUND after hearing 'Strawberry Fields Forever, Chicago cites "Got to Get You Int My Life" as combining rock with horned instruments. Numerous bands were influenced "Tomorrow Never Knows" which is easily one of most influential rock records ever to name a few Radiohead, Grateful Dead, Tangerine Dream, Brian Eno, Syd Barrett, Kraftwerk. The Beatles "Rain" influenced was a huge influence on REM and Oasis and the Brit-Pop sound. Nirvana Kurt Cobain vision of that group was fusing the Sex Pistols with the Beatles. Jimi Hendrix said the Beatles taught him how to make albums and push the studio as insturment. George Harrison use of classical Indian influence was a major influence on World Music. Early heavy metal act Black Sabbath was influenced by "I Want You She So Heavy". Then some of you might not know but the Beatles "She's A Woman" was huge influence on Tex Mex artists Sir Douglass Quintett.

Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 14:03

Slartibartfast wrote:

No band is ever that exacting are they? Wink

See the same could be said about anyone who is massively popular.

The Beatles represent a prefect storm of talent, critical regard AND mass popularity. One of those rare occasions where the very best in the biz was ALSO the one selling the most records. So what happens when you're the top banana? You've gotta whole lot of people trying to tear you down. I highly doubt that having over 10,000 cover versions of your songs is luck. Sometimes it's just better to give credit where it deserves. As an example song like "Tomorrow Never Knows" was insanely progressive for early of 1966.

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 14:51

Of course MovingPictures makes it sound like more intentional than coincidental. In either case I have tremendous admiration for their contribution to mainstream and unmainstream music.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 15:01

Wow, 5 pages already....

-------------

Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime

Posted By: Xanthous
Date Posted: November 28 2009 at 11:35

J-Man wrote:

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?

Yes