The Beatles

[Palantir]

'The context of that statement comes right after a paragraph where I'm bemoaning that other artists don't get their rightful due in the context of music history because the context of The Beatles looms too large -- naturally in that context the next paragraph reads as a fervent hope that as the people who hold them so highly on a pedestal become less and less influential that "wrong" will be righted. It's less about what I think about music, and more of a desire to see history as a whole gain some perspective on popular music through the passage of time. That's why I feel is kind of disingenous to quote only that part as if that's the only thing I said in that post. I'm pretty certain I also won't like some of the acts that do become more prominent as time goes on, but I'll be glad to see the change come anyway.'

 

Disingenuous? Hardly. The statement I quoted is a logical construct, complete in itself.

 

I understand the point of your post completely and have no problems with it at all.

My post was really a protest about the couching of that point in what I see as unnecessarily offensive and provocative terms.

[Kitt]

 I can't wait until today's music finally gets its due and some artists who get written off come into their own spotlight.

 

Yes - I know you will point at me taking one sentence out of many. However - I have a real issue with the idea of some of today's "rap artists" getting the same sort of notoriety as the Beatles did. The idea that kids are even listening to music that seems to have the f-bomb at least three times in every sentence and glorifies the killing of police and raping and mistreatment of women makes me ill. For these people to "come into their own spotlight" would further warp the already skewed ideas of a lot of today's youth.

[Zombie]

Yeeeeeeees! YES! YE-HE-HE-HE-ES! Thank you, wildone for having the courage to bring this to light. I can't stand The Beatles either.

 

Yes, I get it. I know why they are hailed as one of the greatest bands ever and great song writing and bringing big changes to music in a lot of areas, and bla bla bla and that can all go suck it. That's the past. That's what happened.

 

...  when I listen to their muzak it comes off as so twee and self-fellating and ingrating it makes my ears puke. One obvious sign of how much The Beatles suck rotten hairy monkey balls is how much better their music gets when its covered by artists who are far, far more talented than those four liver spots on the wrinkled, hashmarked ass of pop music ...The Beatles sounds like the guttural moans of a chipmunk masturbating by shoving a tweeting Russian doll up its ass. 

Or compare YMO's version of Day Tripper. YMO's actually sounds trippy and inventive and creative and full of a kind of twisted ironic lack of passion that really elevates the lyrics from slop to sly. The Beatles? I'd rather try to survive on a diet of bird poop and nail files than listen to that listless slug of a song.

 

Man, it's your hyperbole that's trippy :funny:

 

The way I see it a cover of a crap song is gonna be ... crap. There's an old English saying about this - you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. So if you liked the covers of some of their songs then they can't have been that crap Maybe it's the particular "Merseybeat sound" they made that curdles your gizzard

 

See, I have two conflicting responses. Intellectually I know the Beatles are one of the most significant bands to date with a permanent place in pop history for a shedload of reasons

- they took pop music in some radically new directions

- they wrote some very original stuff [sure some was derivative but what composer doesn't steal?]

- some of their lyrics are true poems of high quality [Yesterday is one of the finest poems ever set to music]

- they were unquestionably very influential on a load of other bands both at the time [brian Wilson / Beach Boys for example] and ever since [including execrable talentless shits like the Gallagher brothers]

- you lot are posting all these comments on them

 

But I never listen to their songs because in a weird way they kind of depress me.  Just as I know that Shakespeare is and probably always will be the most important playwright in the English language. But I never go to see his plays.

 

Here's my take on all this. Every new generation wants to consign the oldsters to history, to make its mark - it's what we're programmed to do. So it must make them pretty pissy when they discover that a bunch of old men were there before them 50 years ago - all those bands, not just the Beatles - and they nicked the best licks. It's not fair when a 17 yo budding pop or rock star comes up with a new guitar lick, or keyboard riff, or rock lyric only to discover it's all been done before.

 

And history isn't fair. Never was, never will be. Newton got all the glory and he STILL gets all the glory after 300 years, while the brilliant Robert Hooke is and probably always will be the forgotten man.

[wildone]

 

.

 

 

Here's my take on all this. Every new generation wants to consign the oldsters to history, to make its mark - it's what we're programmed to do. So it must make them pretty pissy when they discover that a bunch of old men were there before them 50 years ago - all those bands, not just the Beatles - and they nicked the best licks. It's not fair when a 17 yo budding pop or rock star comes up with a new guitar lick, or keyboard riff, or rock lyric only to discover it's all been done before.

 

Does this mean we have to look forward to Justin Bieber and One Direction to be the next history setting people?

 

 

 

And history isn't fair. Never was, never will be. Newton got all the glory and he STILL gets all the glory after 300 years, while the brilliant Robert Hooke is and probably always will be the forgotten man.

 

 

Who   ?

[JamesSavik]

There is a whole lot of classical music that I don't like... and then there is Debussy.

 

Maybe you don't care for the Beatles. It doesn't diminish them at all.

 

I'm betting that if you listened to a lot of older music, you would find a lot of it is good and, tons of it are rubbish.

 

Here's some rubbish that was once billed "the new classics":

 

 

Edited October 8, 2013 by jamessavik

[Gene Splicer PHD]

It doesn't mean that I'm waiting for the day my parents and their friends die. It means that I think it rather silly I have to wait until the day my generation has had their kids and turned middle-aged to see that sea change fully ripen into society, by which time it will be too late for me and my generation to fix anything that comes about from it, and our children will gripe and moan about all the political and cultural changes we brought about that they don't like, and so on and so forth, until the end of time.

You don't have to wait, even a day. Start making changes. Get a move on. No time like the present, etc.

 

The only thing holding you back is you.

[iSimba]

I shamelessly admit that I am also not a Beatles fan.

[JamesSavik]

There are two distinct periods in Beatles music.

 

The early period was bubble gum and teen idol stuff.

 

 

It's that later stuff that get's interesting. The critics call it their psychedelic phase.

 

Yellow Submarine, the White Album, Abbey Road and Let it Be doubled down on their innovation.

 

It was exceptionally influential and set the stage and public tastes for further innovation.

 

When the Beatles broke up in 1970, several new bands were brand new: Led Zeppelin, Yes, the Allman Brother and Supertramp all started in 1969. Other bands grew in popularity: the Rollings Stones, Pink Floyd and the Who.  It's all very much like a family tree, all branching out from common origin.