Do the Beatles get too much credit.. |
Post Reply | Page <1 2122232425 28> |
Author | ||||
SteveG
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 11 2014 Location: Kyiv In Spirit Status: Offline Points: 20609 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
|
||||
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
||||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
A gross underestimation or downplaying of the impact Beatles had but again, that's par for the course coming from you. Bit more serious? Just play Day In The Life and Please Release Me side by side. No amount of revisionism will be able to describe the gap betwixt the two as merely a matter of being bit more serious.
|
||||
The Anders
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 02 2019 Location: Denmark Status: Offline Points: 3529 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Not if you ask me. Whether one likes their music or not, it had a big impact on the music that came after them - at least until punk and new wave set in. Albums like Revolver, Sgt. Pepper and the White Album are still among my all time favourites.
|
||||
moshkito
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17547 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Hi, You're the master of misquotes and changing the subject and understanding. The Beatles, specially on FM Radio here, were considered far more "serious" than most bands ... and that does not infer or mean, that they can not do a ditty about the queen! You would ... oh wait ... you're perfect ... you would not be strong enough to be an ARTIST and musician that did anything other than top ten at the nearest Red Lion and their circuit! |
||||
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
||||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I quoted your exact words. If you cannot remember your own rambling rants, not my problem.
|
||||
Mortte
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 11 2016 Location: Finland Status: Offline Points: 5538 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
It is quite common & superficial think Lucy in the Sky just drug song. Lennon had said he didnīt put letters LSD in that as purpose. Whatever it is, truth is that Lennon was highly influenced by Lewis Carroll (as many other English children of that time) and itīs his novel "Through the Looking Glass" he got the main inspiration of the song. Have to say also when they recorded this song, John wanted to sound as a child, so they recorded vocals in lower speed as music and he really sounded younger. These are not my thoughts at all. If you want more profound view into Sgt Pepper, please watch a great document of it made by Howard Goodall. Also in 1987 Pepper-document Allen Ginsberg told about Pepperīs lyrics and in the end he said "there is a theme that goes through the album".
|
||||
chopper
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 13 2005 Location: Essex, UK Status: Offline Points: 20030 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Sgt Pepper was supposed to be a concept album but after the first 2 tracks they got bored with the idea and it became "just" an album of songs. Lennon himself has said so.
There is no theme linking the songs together apart from the afore-mentioned openers and the reprise later on.
|
||||
Mortte
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 11 2016 Location: Finland Status: Offline Points: 5538 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
|
||||
Mortte
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 11 2016 Location: Finland Status: Offline Points: 5538 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Edited by Mortte - March 31 2020 at 08:46 |
||||
chopper
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 13 2005 Location: Essex, UK Status: Offline Points: 20030 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I read your post and I've seen Goodall's film as well thanks, I'm still with Lennon on this one.
|
||||
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: February 01 2011 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 13065 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Aside from the album's studio mastery, innovations, that it is both culturally and historically significant, as well as George Harrison's contribution being vastly underrated, I would have to say it is not a concept album as we would later consider albums like Days of Future Past, Tommy, Thick as a Brick, etc. As John Lennon said quite succinctly: "Except for Sgt. Pepper introducing Billy Shears and the so-called reprise, every other song could have been on any other album." Ringo concurred that the first 2 songs ("Sgt. Pepper's and "With a Little Help From My Friends") and the Sgt. Pepper's reprise were the only conceptual parts of the album. And referring back to Harrison's "Within You Without You", it is utterly and literally foreign to whatever the original concept was (Lennon/McCartney childhood, brass bands in the park, etc.), and if we were to point to progressivity in Beatles' music, then this composition, "Strawberry Fields" and "A Day In The Life" are the highlights of that session. Harrison doesn't just use Indian instruments as a hippy afterthought like so many other bands of that time, he actually studied music in India with Ravi Shankar, he used Indian musicians for the recording, and the scales employed in the piece are from Raga, the melodic mode of Indian classical music. |
||||
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
||||
NickShill
Forum Newbie Joined: September 01 2024 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 1 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
"Joe Strummer clearly thinks that the Beatles weren't very good" - really? You believe that biased on what? Your intimate knowledge of the Clash or of Joe Strummer? You are the problem the song is speaking out on- accepting things at face value, not questioning the nuances.
Joe was more Beatles up until his late 20's than he was to Iggy Pop. Was a folk and bluegrass guy. He liked and was influenced by the Beatles. But when punk and The Clash broke all you heard is "it's not music" from the freedom trail hippies who thought "Their" music, the Beatles, Jefferson Airplane, Moody Blues, Grateful Dead, that was real music, not this noise (yes, the boomers were killing everyone's buzz since 1974!). Imaging you have this new, explosive high energy DYI music that is very new, and all you get told is how great the people were before you. The hypocrisy of that! When these same boomers were told only 10 years before that Rock was terrible and the only musicians worth a f was the ones their parents liked. And it was the largest population demo saying this, so advertisers, media, these were the only people being listened to. So it was an FU to the old gatekeepers who became out of touch on the things they protested and stood for. And he says "phony Beatlemania", not "The Beatles" - are you aware how mush Beatle marketing was being thrown down our throats? Beatlemaina, a tribute band imitation was live in Los Angeles, Chicago, Cincinnati, New York and London. It was about living in an echo chamber and forgetting what you stood for as much as it was about gatekeeping and closing the mind to new ideas because they were not from YOUR generation. Joe Strummer thought the Beatles influence in music and culture was undeniable, he just was not one to bow down to an artist or group like they were divine and immune to over exposure and being made infallible. Mick Jones of the Clash has better memories of the Beatles (who you said the Clash thought "weren't very good") from his days of BEING THE OPENING ACT FOR THEM IN FRANCE IN 1964! John Lennon invited Mick to have a drink with the boys at one performance, which he did. Take the time to check the lyrics and meaning in London Calling. I think you are missing out on an anthem with very deeper meanings that are on the surface.
|
||||
Psychedelic Paul
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 16 2019 Location: Nottingham, U.K Status: Offline Points: 40379 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I Love Prog, but I Love Me Do some Beatles too, so the answer's definitely "No".
Spot the deliberate grammatical mistakes in the above sentence.
|
||||
Saperlipopette!
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 20 2010 Location: Tomorrowland Status: Online Points: 11711 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
I got to give The Beatles their 100'th No (and read about 80% of this hugely entertaining and frustrating discussion that I've never noticed before).
Many
bands and artists of the past deserve more credit than they get. But
other additional credit doesn't need to be taken from The Beatles (whose
innovation, influence and importance of poular music can't be
overstated imo) and handed out to others. This additional, well deserved credit should co-exist with The Beatles unique position staying intact.
|
||||
chopper
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 13 2005 Location: Essex, UK Status: Offline Points: 20030 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Mick opened for The Beatles when he was 8 years old, and had a drink with them! Who was he playing with then?
|
||||
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 36050 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Ah, this old topic which was done in part in the spirit of fun... My position remains the same. The Beatles is a hugely influential band that was very innovative in pop/rock that still gets too much credit from some for being more originative than they are, the right amount of credit form others, and not enough credit from others still. I went with yes simply because some have given it a level of credit that I do not believe is ultimately justifiable and I have seen various dubious claims. Most everything tends to be overrated and underrated (in terms of objective merit) by some.
EDIT: The question as I phrased it is rather different than I remembered. "Do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination?" "Commonly" muddies the waters. Otherwise, a yes would be simpler to me, and obvious enough, especially obvious if I added in an "ever" as In do they ever get too much credit in those terms. of course I must have said commonly to make it hopefully a more interesting discussion. Infuriating reading perhaps, but I found it quite invigorating at the time. :) It passes the time... As long as it's convivial to me, I commonly don't really care what the subject is. Edited by Logan - September 01 2024 at 11:52 |
||||
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65272 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
Let's remember Pepper's was initially based on the notion that the band had grown a bit tired of being the Beatles and thought it would be cool & fun to make an album as if they were a different band. In this context, the "concept" and its inception becomes more clear, and the musical inspiration more obvious. There was no concept other than wanting to get away from themselves.
|
||||
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
||||
siLLy puPPy
Special Collaborator PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic Joined: October 05 2013 Location: SFcaUsA Status: Offline Points: 15254 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
If you're talking about The Beatles as an entity they certainly deserve all the credit for all the inspiration and wonderful music they delivered in a few short years. If you're talking about the members of the band then it's unclear how much they actually contributed to the band's overall sound and success and how much was the working of invisible hands. There were much greater forces pushing a drug scene on the public at this stage so it's fairly obvious that bands like The Beatles never would've accomplished as much as they did without the support of other outside forces. Whatever the case the music is still brilliant and more than holds the test of time. I(function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'8bc91c499f7b7afa',t:'MTcyNTIzNDA4MC4wMDAwMDA='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.nonce='';a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">
|
||||
https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
||||
jamesbaldwin
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 25 2015 Location: Milano Status: Offline Points: 5989 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|||
Do you know Scaruffi?
His judgement about The Beatles is legendary. Here: The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all time are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all time. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics, instead, are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, most rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from. Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. At such a time, rock critics will study their rock history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it commercially. Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles. Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for good reason. They could never figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Four'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of entire operas such as "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia"; not to mention the far greater British musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the US musicians themselves who initially spearheaded what the Beatles merely later repackaged to the masses. The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time reading these pages about such a trivial band. Extended note from 2010. The Beatles were not a terribly interesting band, but their fans were and still are an interesting phenomenon. I can only name religious fundamentalists as annoying (and as threatening) as Beatles fans, and as persevering in sabotaging anyone who dares express an alternate opinion of their faith. They have turned me into some kind of Internet celebrity not because of the 6,000 bios that i have written, not because of the 800-page book that i published, not because of the 30 years of cultural events that i organized, but simply because i downplayed the artistic merits of the Beatles, an action that they consider as disgraceful as the 2001 terrorist attacks. If you to go on: |
||||
Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion.
|
||||
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65272 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||
^ ^ The man who invaded George Harrison's home and stabbed him seemed to believe there certainly were "invisible hands" and "greater forces" at work. Apparently, in his mind (or maybe just in my mind), the band and George Martin had some secret--- some talisman that allowed them to create inescapably great songs.
Edited by Atavachron - September 01 2024 at 17:51 |
||||
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
||||
Post Reply | Page <1 2122232425 28> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |