Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Do the Beatles get too much credit..
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Do the Beatles get too much credit..

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2223242526 28>
Poll Question: See opening post for question.
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
54 [31.40%]
115 [66.86%]
3 [1.74%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message
Grumpyprogfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 09 2019
Location: Kansas City
Status: Offline
Points: 11690
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grumpyprogfan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2024 at 18:41
What interests me the most in this 14 year old thread, is the amount of forum members who no longer participate.

The answer to the question is no. And how did a newbie unlock this thread?


Edited by Grumpyprogfan - September 01 2024 at 18:45
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 36091
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2024 at 20:25
^ No special newbie powers needed as it was not locked. It depends how many years ago was the latest response, not when it was created The last post before that post was in 2020, and one can still find many open topics with the latest response from 2018.
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65273
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Atavachron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2024 at 20:50
You can also Google a PA thread title (or even topic) and often find one from well over ten years ago, even if locked.
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
AFlowerKingCrimson View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 02 2016
Location: Philly burbs
Status: Offline
Points: 18416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote AFlowerKingCrimson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2024 at 21:42
Some people will say that the Beatles invented the following genres:

Hard Rock
Heavy Metal
Folk Rock
Art Rock
Prog Rock
Psychedelic Rock

I say no to all six but they were influential in all of these and helped popularize all of these (ok maybe not so much metal). 


Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - September 01 2024 at 21:42
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65273
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Atavachron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 01 2024 at 21:46
The truth is the Beatles were as much brilliant imitators as they were innovators.   Many of their songs were variations of styles, largely American styles, and reflect the music they were hearing as kids on U.S. broadcasts, Armed Forces, Swing & Jazz, Pop, etc.

But that's fair, and that's what most songwriters do-- They imitate and innovate at the same time.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 28176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote richardh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 02 2024 at 01:00
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Undoubtedly the Beatles were hugely influential (has been incredibly popular), but do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination?

I certainly think so.

I voted 'No' but only in terms of sparking the British progressive rock scene. Famously Robert Fripp heard a Day In The Life and it changed his whole outlook and direction in music.
It all seems to happen when Rubber Soul is recorded and establishes firmly the idea that 'popular music' can be about artistic expression. Before then it was mainly classical music and jazz that had those virtues. The Beach Boys were always behind the curve and Zappa was perhaps trying to cross over from some sort of free jazz style. 
In general the sixties brought forward a whole host of interesting and diverse music acts, far too many to mention but The Kinks, The Who and The Moody Blues were also innovative. Even The Rolling Stones (bless their cotton little woolies) were important and got the memo. It was a fun time but The Beatles still stood head and shoulders above the rest imo.
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65273
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Atavachron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 02 2024 at 01:35
^ The Beach Boys behind the curve?   They were so far ahead of the curve and sophisticated no one noticed.   But they were overproduced, too richly vocal-oriented, and of course American...the progressive kiss of death.
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sean Trane Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 02 2024 at 02:53
Tempting to say "a little too much", but in general, no, they were essential. 

Originally posted by Grumpyprogfan Grumpyprogfan wrote:

And how did a newbie unlock this thread?

My question is how to reactivate a closed thread?

As a special collab, I can't (or at least don't know how to)
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
Psychedelic Paul View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 16 2019
Location: Nottingham, U.K
Status: Online
Points: 40484
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Psychedelic Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 02 2024 at 03:39
Originally posted by Grumpyprogfan Grumpyprogfan wrote:

What interests me the most in this 14 year old thread, is the amount of forum members who no longer participate.

The answer to the question is no. And how did a newbie unlock this thread?
This thread has only been inactive for four years previously, so I presume that's why it was still open. Smile
Back to Top
chopper View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 02 2024 at 08:29
Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

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:




He's entitled to his opinion. Yes, they weren't the greatest musicians, after all they were pretty much self-taught and learned the rest from George Martin. They're still the most influential, regardless of what he thinks.
I've had some interesting "discussions" with people on Twitter about The Beatles - one who insists Paul died and was replaced by Billy Shears and one who thinks they were manufactured by "Tavistock", whatever that is.
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 36091
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 02 2024 at 09:18
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Tempting to say "a little too much", but in general, no, they were essential. 

Originally posted by Grumpyprogfan Grumpyprogfan wrote:

And how did a newbie unlock this thread?


My question is how to reactivate a closed thread?

As a special collab, I can't (or at least don't know how to)


\You have to have forum moderator privileges for that. If one wants a topic to be unlocked, please PM myself or Ian (Nogbadthebad). Or whoever is an active admin at the time.

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

Just to restate for all, this was not locked since it was not inactive long enough, and those automatic lock times have not been consistent, by the way, depending on what M@x has done to the forum and forum updates. Threads with the last response from early May 2018 (from memory) are locked. This topic's last response was in was 2020. Paul is correct.
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65273
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Atavachron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 02 2024 at 20:19
Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

I've had some interesting "discussions" with people on Twitter about The Beatles - one who insists Paul died and was replaced by Billy Shears and one who thinks they were manufactured by "Tavistock", whatever that is.

That's absurd--    Most of their songs were written by Mrs. Jean Clapsaddle of Tacoma, Washington.   I thought everyone knew that.


"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
AFlowerKingCrimson View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 02 2016
Location: Philly burbs
Status: Offline
Points: 18416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AFlowerKingCrimson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 02 2024 at 20:49
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

The truth is the Beatles were as much brilliant imitators as they were innovators.   Many of their songs were variations of styles, largely American styles, and reflect the music they were hearing as kids on U.S. broadcasts, Armed Forces, Swing & Jazz, Pop, etc.

But that's fair, and that's what most songwriters do-- They imitate and innovate at the same time.


Imo, that would describe Rush also (but with different influences of course). 
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65273
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Atavachron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 02 2024 at 21:33
^ Well, no I don't think so. The Beatles were influenced by everyone from 1930s American Pop to Sinatra to the Everly Brothers to Dylan.   Rush were a hard rock/heavy blues band before their sci-fi prog period.


"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20257
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sean Trane Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 03 2024 at 02:19
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

You have to have forum moderator privileges for that. If one wants a topic to be unlocked, please PM myself or Ian (Nogbadthebad). Or whoever is an active admin at the time.

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

Just to restate for all, this was not locked since it was not inactive long enough, and those automatic lock times have not been consistent, by the way, depending on what M@x has done to the forum and forum updates. Threads with the last response from early May 2018 (from memory) are locked. This topic's last response was in was 2020. Paul is correct.

ThxSmile
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
Octopus II View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 21 2023
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 10663
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Octopus II Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 03 2024 at 08:23
No Smile
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17849
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catcher10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 03 2024 at 11:17
Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

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:


I could care less about the Fab Four, and of course I answered Yes. It's a discussion that can go on forever, although I am finding more and more that people don't talk about them much. The 60's was a million years ago and the fanatics are dying off. The music does not seem to have any relevance within todays marketing world, meaning look at what the Queen catalog just sold for, and why.
The catalog was not purchased for Sony to be able to reissue box sets or special edition packages for $100, not even close. It was purchased for its marketing power in movies, commercials hell any sports media/team that plays "We Are The Champions" Sony will get money for the rest of eternity. 

What Scaruffi wrote is more about the status of pop/rock music today, yes about the Beatles, but about pop/rock in general and how the public perceives "the best". The Grammy's are 100% about sales and little to no musical talent recognized, its a shame........AI content is getting a Grammy award.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17569
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 04 2024 at 08:38
Hi,

I kinda wish this thread was locked. 

Fans, today, seem to have not a whole lot of appreciation for music history and its placement. It's hard for me, to think that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky and the Beatles ... were not valuable and important in the grand scheme and history of things ... although The Beatles will probably fit better in the improvement of radio materials from bubble gum crap to music that was more intelligent and creative, something that is a horribly difficult study for most folks in terms of radio play and the lack of it ... but we know that after the Great American Radio Rape, entering the 80's, that radio stopped being an important reason for many bands to make it ... for lack of a better word for it.

The Beatles, and The Rolling Stones, probably fit better as a discussion of how it all became so much bigger than the AM radio band and its very commercial atmosphere.

But seeing folks here, make comments that deny the history of it all is similar to the worst in the 20th Century for me ... reality has a way to be forgotten and left behind and a lot of the younger folks don't seem to believe, or care, when the history books mention it. The saying is that things will keep repeating themselves if we don't learn from them ... and it is hard for me to not see that happening here ... you might not like the Beatles, but disrespecting them is not exactly the right thing to do, just like you do not exactly do that to the huge composers from the last 500 years.
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
Back to Top
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 28176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote richardh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2024 at 00:14
Well I still think that 1967 -1977 is the most important era of music in my lifetime. You could name any famous musician from that era and it's just mind boggling how much talent was about in general. After 1977 it became about corporate interests and not about 'the art'. IMO. The Beatles understood what was needed. It's not about how good they were or whether jazz musicians were better. I seriously don't care about that. The Beatles wrote Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields and Eleanor Rigby. Great songs, great hooks and clever production. They were played on the radio and so I got to hear a trumpet solo for the first time. BTW The idea that other musicians didn't respect them is complete and total bunkum.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MikeEnRegalia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2024 at 01:37
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Hi,

I kinda wish this thread was locked. 

Fans, today, seem to have not a whole lot of appreciation for music history and its placement.

You should just ignore random users who say things you do not agree with. Point out how they are wrong and move on Smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2223242526 28>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.242 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.