Best Ever Albums

Re: Beatles Bashing

NowhereMan — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:39:16 GMT

Author: NowhereMan

Posted: 04/23/2009 14:39

Midas wrote:

Mr.Music every band that recorded music in say 1964 sounds dated. Let's fast forward to Revolver many of the tracks sound much more Modern sounding than much of what's on VU first album. Do you hear how old some of these tracks are.

I think a lot of the Velvet Underground unique sound is how their vocals sound and experimenting with un-tuned guitars.

"There She Goes Again" musically sounds like a Merseybeat song with Garage sounding vocals

"Venus In Furs" sounds like something like the Doors

"Femme Fatale" and "Sunday Morning" sounds like Baroque Pop

"Waiting for the Man" is just rock and roll"

"Ill Be Your Mirror" sounds like it could come from any 60s pop music group.

"All Tomorrow Parties" is not really that avant sounding and it has a nice melody.

The Doors first album sounds progressively dated. Sgt Pepper sounds dated as most psychedelic sounding albums but much of the White Album and Abbey Road sounds almost contemporary. I know that the Beatles get a lot of attention but a lot of their influence from the 60's was cultural also and that is why they get more attention than say any band of the 60's. You are not going to get Rockband coming from Dylan or the Kinks they don't have that kind of following. Those are the facts. Is it fair not really and I can understand why someone would not like the Beatles but those are the facts.

Much more than just on their debut...

Re: Beatles Bashing

Midas — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:08:28 GMT

Author: Midas

Posted: 04/23/2009 14:08

Mr.Music every band that recorded music in say 1964 sounds dated. Let's fast forward to Revolver many of the tracks sound much more Modern sounding than much of what's on VU first album. Do you hear how old some of these tracks are.

I think a lot of the Velvet Underground unique sound is how their vocals sound and experimenting with un-tuned guitars.

"There She Goes Again" musically sounds like a Merseybeat song with Garage sounding vocals

"Venus In Furs" sounds like something like the Doors

"Femme Fatale" and "Sunday Morning" sounds like Baroque Pop

"Waiting for the Man" is just rock and roll"

"Ill Be Your Mirror" sounds like it could come from any 60s pop music group.

"All Tomorrow Parties" is not really that avant sounding and it has a nice melody.

The Doors first album sounds progressively dated. Sgt Pepper sounds dated as most psychedelic sounding albums but much of the White Album and Abbey Road sounds almost contemporary. I know that the Beatles get a lot of attention but a lot of their influence from the 60's was cultural also and that is why they get more attention than say any band of the 60's. You are not going to get Rockband coming from Dylan or the Kinks they don't have that kind of following. Those are the facts. Is it fair not really and I can understand why someone would not like the Beatles but those are the facts.

Re: Beatles Bashing

joannajewsom — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:11:32 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 04/22/2009 19:11

NowhereMan, you make me sound close-minded when you say that no one is going to change my opinion (to be fair, you say that about everybody; you did, however, single me out). My opinion can be changed if someone gives me a good reason to change my opinion. For this very reason, I don't have the same ideals/opinions as I did, say, a year ago. Maybe some people need to learn how take part in a structured debate, instead of acting like I'm close-minded all the while avoiding the questions I ask, and ignoring my rebuttals. I'm completely open-minded to reasonable thought, and I will not apologize for pointing out holes and flaws in people's arguments. If that makes me close-minded, so be it.

Telling me that Fripp liked "A Day in the Life"and Hendrix covered their songs, like he did 100s of other bands, are not good reasons for me to change my opinion. Telling me that millions of other people like the Beatles is not a good reason for me to change my opinion or reevaluate my position. Millions of people are eating McDonald's burgers everyday, but that does not once make me reconsider my opinion of their food. Accepting these aa good reasons to change my opinion to that of the Beatles being the best, would not be changing my opinion. That would just be adopting the opinion of others.

Re: Beatles Bashing

NowhereMan — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:24:38 GMT

Author: NowhereMan

Posted: 04/22/2009 15:24

P.S Joanna, I agree with you on how you feel about I'm Waiting For The Man, although I'll Be Your Mirror is a beautiful song, same with Pale Blue Eyes. 😜

Re: Beatles Bashing

NowhereMan — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:11:47 GMT

Author: NowhereMan

Posted: 04/22/2009 15:11

Mr.Music, I am going to state the obvious:

It's all a matter of opinion, nobody is going to change anybodies, for me they are the ultimate and that I Find Strawberry Fields stirring.

To be honest everybody should please themselves with the music they enjoy rather than creating arrogant/sarcastic posts that they seem to read as.

You are not going to alter JoannaJewsom's opinion, that is clear, I think most people need a lesson on how to take part in a structured debate.

(I am conflicting no - one here.)

Re: Beatles Bashing

Mr.Music — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:58:39 GMT

Author: Mr.Music

Posted: 04/22/2009 11:58

I agree that the Beatles were influential and they were among the first rock groups. The reason why some people get pissed about them(including me) is the fact that they steal so much attention. Most of the people who praise them dont know shit about popular music and thats a fact. The other thing is that most of their albums are dated, why the hell should anyone from the 21 century listen to Strawberry Fields?....and even get something out of it? Is it that beautiful? I better listen to Astral Weeks if i want to listen to something beautiful.
About Beatles stealing attention. Because they were and still are so overhyped(the first real megagroup like Jackson, U2, Madonna later) the other bands and artists had to live in their shadow, even the mighty Stones and the Kinks. For me Beatles represent the easy music, i dont have to think much when i listen them, i dont get no deep feelings, i dont want to say FUCK OFF(punk), i dont get no feeling of art!
Atleast i wont shut the radio!

Re: Beatles Bashing

joannajewsom — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:56:00 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 04/22/2009 04:56

AngryAchilles, I'm not denying the Beatles significance and influence. I'm only denying the exaggerated claims about their significance and influence. Those I can deny, along with the idea that I'm my wrong for not liking the Beatles. That "no one can tell Joanna what to like and what not to like" line doesn't sit well with me. You sound somewhat resentful that someone can't make me like the Beatles. I hope that's not the case.

Funny thing is, I actually like the Beatles. I just think that they are far from the best.

theharrisonfords, when I said that this isn't a democratic vote, the 'this' referred specifically to my opinion of any given album. When you say "this is a democratic vote," you're referring to the overall chart on the site. I don't see any reason to bring this up. I'm not denying that, and that's not what the conversation was about. I stand by my point that the opinion of others carries no weight when I make my personal judgment of an album/band, and I stick by it. Switching the "them" in the "me vs. them" equation from the vague music community of the world, down a smaller scale (this site), doesn't make any less true my point that my opinion on an album is not a democratic vote.

To be honest, I haven't looked at the overall chart in ages, and I have no interest in doing so. I can predict what's going to be on there, anyway, and I have no interest in going on a crusade to get OK Computer out of the number one spot. I couldn't care less. My point is, whether this is besteveralbums.com or not, my personal opinion is not a democratic vote. I have Freak Out! at number 1 on my chart. Just because I'm participating in the site, does not mean that I'm going to look at the overall chart, see it at 500 or something and say, "well, that's the rules of the site. It's a democratic vote, and Freak Out! is not the best album."

See, I would agree that there is a difference between 'best' and 'greatest'; however, I would word it as the difference between "favorite albums" and "best albums"; but that's just a semantic issue, I think, and we're on the same page, when it comes down to it. Personally, my usage of 'best' and 'greatest' is rather interchangeable, and not on different sides of the spectrum. Again, that's just semantics at this point. We can easily call it objective vs. subjective, to simplify the point I think you're making. The 'best' and 'greatest' semantic game can get tricky, but I'll make an attempt to clear up my definition of greatness.

When considering what is great music, here's my criteria:
A) How good it sounds/how it connects with me emotionally
B) Originality
C) Innovation
D) Technical Proficiency
E) Influence

That's basically it. A few things worth noting: B-E are, for the most part, objective. There can be arguments regarding levels on originality or innovation, but it's a fact that Zappa was original, innovative, technically proficient, and influential. How original, etc. he was is a conversation worth having, but I suggest that you walk away from anyone who tries to flat out say that Zappa wasn't any of the four, anyone who tries to argue the level of these facts beyond a reasonable point. Same with the Beatles.

What I really want to point out is that, for me, B-E all add to A. Basically, B+C+D+E+ unexplained attraction to certain sounds = A.
I prefer to listen to music that's original because it feels sincere, and can connect with me on an emotional level. Something original is intriguing, refreshing, and makes for a unique experience.
With innovation, hearing musicians do something new with sound that I've never heard before makes for a more enjoyable listening experience. Of course, certain innovations from, say, the 60s are now a given, so a lot of innovation can be a non-factor to contemporary ears; however, I've found that innovation is related to originality, and true originals like Zappa, Dylan, and Beefheart (especially), can never be matched, no matter how many copycats they spawn. That notion speaks to your idea of timelessness, I think, so I agree with you on that. Also with innovation, in my experience, hearing a certain technique on a 60s record usually sounds much better hearing on a 2000s record. For example, I listened to Portishead's "Half Day Closing" (1997), and thought, "this is a damn good song." Then, years later, I heard the USA song, "American Metaphysical Circus," (1968), which heavily inspired the Portishead song (the sound of both are extremely similar, and Portishead thanked them in the liner notes for the inspiration on that track). Hearing those techniques, which I already heard on a Portishead record, wound being more enjoyable the second time around and surprisingly more, um, surprising. I wasn't expecting to hear a sound like that on a record from 68, and that immediately grabbed my attention, and I enjoyed the song more.

You touched on this when you talked about Lou Reed. Hearing him explore such subject matter in that context is much more intriguing to me, and I personally don't listen to it like any other song. Just about every listener would have a pretty good idea of the social/musical scene at that point in history, and wouldn't have too difficult a time putting it in context.

There are many factors to consider here, though: how many people are really writing songs like Lou Reed, then and now, despite how influential he is? To use your example of hip-hop songs, it's pretty safe to say gangster rappers are surely not approaching the subject matter in the same manner. There's a difference between the exaggerated and void of subtlety cartoon violence of gangster rap, and "I'm Waiting for the Man," in which an effectively detached Lou Reed draws the listener into that world, that point in American history, giving the listener a charmingly simple step-by-step score-a-hit scenario, making the listener feel as if we were walking down Lexington & 125 with him at that very moment. Even the great gangster rap will never desensitize me to that song. I listened to "Only Built 4 Cuban Linx" hundreds of times before I even knew who Lou Reed was, but when I heard "I'm Waiting for the Man" for the first time, it was a shocking and powerful song, and remains so until this day. I think something "I'm Waiting for the Man" would fall into that timeless category you mentioned. People aren't writing songs like that, I'm sorry. You do make a good point, and a lot of listeners undeniably would react to Lou Reed's music like N64. I'm just saying that it could go either way. I'd like to think that timeless quality would prevent that in most cases.

Anyway, I'm writing too much, so I'll skip to E. Influence, um, influences how much I'll like a song to a minimum. Listening to Zappa and hearing all the "protoness" does make it more enjoyable, but not that much. What's really a work, I think, is the fact that innovation is so closely related to influence, and it's probably the innovation that makes it enjoyable. That's why influence is not required. I can call my uncle's album in the closet 'great', even if it's impossible for it to be influential. If it meets the other criteria, then that's enough for me to call it 'great.' So 'recognition' (you should be more clear on this term- recognition from whom and for what?) is not a factor for me.

This is not a simple formula. There are some bands that probably fulfill B-E, but it surprisingly just doesn't hit me. There are a lot of bands who are not technically proficient or influential, but I love their music. The two most important things for me are originality and innovation. I really can't see myself enjoying something that's not original and doing something different. Sometimes, these factors can be in conflict with each other. For example, OK Computer is technically mindblowing, but I can't get into it because it's too derivative. I'm sorry, but whenever I listen to that album, I keep hearing Bono.

My point is that my music taste has evolved to the point where my "favorites" come so closely to my "greatest" albums that I completely trust my opinion, and I don't feel the need to separate the two.

Anyway, I'm interested in your definition of great. Don't worry, I don't expect you to write as much as me.

Hahaha. I'm glad I mentioned the Pet Rock. I love Office Space. It's a 'great' movie.

Re: Beatles Bashing

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:47:48 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/22/2009 01:47

Wow, okay, we have a lot of discussing to do. Yes, I also laugh at myself-- There's no point in anything else with as something as (admittingly) arbitrary to opinions on rock music. I love your critique on my critique, so I feel I should critique your critique for the sake of further critiques. Today is Tuesday, a sobering day, and hopefully I can actually justify my argument. So, I guess I will just take a step by step stance to this. There's a lot of reading to go through, and I just finished reading a translation of alienated labour (Marx), so I am amped to discuss.

First off, I will accept my shortfalls and give you credit for pointing them out. I will try to further clarify my weaker arguments. Second, I know this is a mere opinion-based argument, which means ultimately, the likely conclusion for everything-- as much as it pains me-- is to "agree to disagree". However, since leaving it at that would just be so... boring, I shall continue.

First off... (forgive my Luddite nature, for I don't know how to 'properly' quote on this site, nor do I care)
"I have a right to my opinion on music. I judge things on what comes out of the two speakers, not by how many people like it. I have one pair of ears, and that's the only pair in the world that I need to account for. It's not a democratic vote, when it comes to my opinion on music. The universal accessibility of music is irrelevant when it comes to what music we choose to listen to. The music we choose to listen only needs to be accessible to the one pair of ears we personally own."

That is a fairly good argument. You are indeed entitled to your opinion and are entitled to what your two own ears make of the music you listen to. However, this is more of a cope-out than anything else. Unfortunately, this is a democratic vote-- not in this particular forum or discussion thread, but remember, this is besteveralbums.com; and people do vote on the best albums. Now, even though I don't agree with OK Computer being #1- and I am entitled to my opinion, but that doesn't change Radiohead's rankings... unless I argue against it and convince other people otherwise. I'll admit, it would be nice if you could agree with me, but I respect your opinion. Secondly, yes, universal accessibility is irrelevant when choice is considered. However, we are arguing not about the 'best' band, but the greatest. Greatness is not only compounded with talent or skill or etc., but recognition and timelessness and so on and so forth. Was Achilles the best warrior in the battle of Troy? It can be argued that he wasn't- but can be considered he was the greatest? Well, I know his name, thousands of years after the fact, not Athenian x. If the best band wasn't discovered until some family relative uncovered a recording in a basement, how could they be great? Now I am not saying that the 'greatest' anything follows a simple formula, but there is a difference between 'greatest' and 'best'. If we were supposed to talk about the best- I will stop. I'll recognize that I even mixed them up yesterday... I have an excuse though. 🙄

Next..."Is [Velvet Underground's] music great now, but it wasn't back then? Of course not, because it's the same exact sounds coming out of the speakers."

This right here is an interesting argument. True, by just the record and the recording itself there is no difference in it today compared with 40 years ago. I will ignore technicalities such as the difference between sound from a record to a cd, etc. I would disagree, however, on the grounds on how people perceive what they are hearing between a distance in time. Remember, this was 1967 (right?) when VU & Nico released their album. Rock and Roll was still in its infancy/adolescence at this time, and so breaking ground was a big deal. While we take it for granted, Lou Reed was very groundbreaking with his lyricism. Talking about inner-city life to such a dark light was very new in rock- sure, artists would use abstractions to describe drugs (Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds), very tongue-in-cheek. Lou Reed, however, sang about it explicitly. The song is titled heroin. Not "Jesus's son" or something abstract like that. Today, with having such 'controversial' lyrics being so mainstream (i.e., pick a hip-hop song), we would listen to it like any other song. In the 60s however, this was new ground, and therefore people heard it differently. You see this 'breaking ground' business in everything. When I first played an n64, I couldn't think of graphics getting better. Today, I can barely play Goldeneye because I can't get over the blockyness to it. I can clarify further if you need me to, but I think that explains it.

"Well, I won't go too deep into this analogy. [football to art]"

I agree. It was stupid. I just couldn't think of anything else at the time , I hoped that the above explanation helped.

Finally..."People are still talking about the Pet Rock, for Pete's sake, but that doesn't mean it was a great product."

I disagree... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcv5e6xX25I

Well, have a laugh, I got you on that one, and you have to accept that. I mean, you practically set yourself up on that one- I couldn't resist.

Cheers[/quote]

Re: Beatles Bashing

RFNAPLES — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:43:46 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/22/2009 01:43

Anyone can tell her what to like but only she can decide to comply.

An infant may prefer breast milk but hopefully they will learn to appreciate other sources of nutrition before they die.

Tolstoy hated Shakespeare

AngryAchilles — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:15:05 GMT

Author: AngryAchilles

Posted: 04/22/2009 01:15

Here's a literary analogy that I think is apt: Tolstoy hated Shakespeare and Henry James didn't particularly care for Tolstoy. I may think that all three of them are great writers (however I choose to define the term "great") but even three heavyweights like them couldn't agree on artistic merit. Joanna can't deny that the Beatles are historically significant and influential (just as Tolstoy couldn't deny that about Shakespeare) but no one can tell Joanna what to like and what not to like.

I personally would give the following "schoolgirl" ratings to the Beatles

A Hard Day's Night: B-
Help: C+
Rubber Soul: B
Revolver: A+
Sgt. Pepper's: B
Magical Mystery Tour: B+
White Album: A+
Abbey Road: A
Past Masters 2 (Later Singles): A+

Re: Beatles Bashing

RFNAPLES — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:54:00 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/22/2009 00:54

🫵 Calm yourself. It doesn't matter if we disagree! The world will keep going around.

Re: Beatles Bashing

joannajewsom — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:16:10 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 04/22/2009 00:16

You're not fooling anyone with your passive-aggressive comments. They're laughably obvious, to be honest.

The other two paragraphs didn't refer directly to the part you quoted, but they obviously were referring to stuff that I said earlier.

This is what you said:
"You don't have to get on the bandwagon but don't ignore it either."

In the post that preceded it, I said this:

"Personally, telling me that the Beatles sold 1 billion albums doesn't make the sounds coming out of the speaker any greater"

this

"Basically, I don't see any conversation in which popularity is relevant"

and

"However, the argument you're making right now is one that justifies such bandwagon jumping." (Here, I specifically mention "bandwagon", a term that you used in the very next post).

Considering that I said all that in the post right before you, and then you said, "You don't have to get on the bandwagon but don't ignore it either," it's pretty obvious what/whom you were referring to. Answer me this, please. Don't ignore this question, please. If that bandwagon remark wasn't referring to me/my post, like you're trying to claim, what made you say that? It didn't come out of nowhere. I'm curious to what was said in this thread that made you suggest that we not ignore the bandwagon.

This is really the worst excuse of backpedaling I've ever witnessed. Posting in a thread, and then claiming you weren't responding to the points brought up.

I love how you avoided all of my other questions. I know, you have no obligation to answer me. Sure. Spare me that line, and excuse me for expecting someone with whom I'm conversing to answer my questions. However, when you avoid questions, they make you look like you don't have a good answer.

With that said, I pose this question, and I kindly ask you for an answer. Please don't dance around this, because I'm really interested in the answer.
You obviously tried to share some wisdom with the users on this site via your nonsensical color analogy. I initially thought that it had to do with the Beatles, popularity, and those who don't share those views possibly needing to reevaluate their position; I mean, that was what we were talking about. Supposedly, that wasn't directed toward me. But please tell me, in a thread about the Beatles and their popularity, what are we supposed to take from this nonsensical analogy:

"You don't have to get on the bandwagon but don't ignore it either. If everybody thinks it is white while you think it is black, perhaps you need to reevaluate your position after further education, training and experience."

Given the nature of the thread, how are we to apply this to what we were discussing? Please, explain this. Tell me, in the context of the thread, what "it" represents,
what "white" represents
what "black" represents

Re: Beatles Bashing

RFNAPLES — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:03:09 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/21/2009 23:03

Joanna, only my first paragraph following your quote referred to your comment. Even so it was not suggested that only you should feel responsible to reply. My following paragraphs covered nothing in your quote.

I didn't say you were paranoid either. I find it hard to believe you can continue ad infinitum. Your avatar was well chosen.

Re: Beatles Bashing

joannajewsom — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:29:42 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 04/21/2009 21:29

Well, what you said was in a direct response to my post. You actually quoted me in your response! That's why you didn't need to address me as Joanna. Pardon me for assuming that someone directly responding to my post (based on content, and succession), using the word "you", and quoting me, was actually talking to me. How silly of me.

Obviously, something I said made you make your public comment. It didn't come out of thin air. What was said in this discussion that made you suggest what you suggested?

Funny how all of my "fantasies" seem to fit in perfectly with your little pearls of wisdom and the direction of the conversation. Plug the Beatles and the poster to whom you were speaking (me) into your comments, and they miraculously make sense in the context of the conversation. Yet, they're just fantasies.

Isn't this entire thread about the greatness and popularity of the Beatles?
Who else could you be talking about/to? I'm dying to know what the "everybody thinks it is white" is referring to, if not the Beatles popularity. The color analogy seemed pretty black and white to me. Just another fantasy of mine, I guess.

Do you just go around message boards, throwing out random, off-topic remarks, in response to no one in particular, quoting the previous poster for no reason? That's really the best excuse you can come up with? Any literate person can read the last 4 or 5 posts, and see that you were directly responding to me; and any literate person can see right through your passive-aggressive condescension towards me, and know what you were saying. Yet, I'm being paranoid.

Re: Beatles Bashing

RFNAPLES — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:52:16 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/21/2009 20:52

This is a public forum and I was making a public comment. “You” did not refer to Joanna but referred to any unspecified person or people in general. If I wanted to address Joanna I would use your name or a private message.

I don't recall saying The Beatles were great or that Joanna was uneducated. Please don't attribute your fantasies to me.

Sorry that I am not longwinded but I feel that the number of words or inches is less important than how you use them. I choose to be optimistic and positive rather than pessimistic and negative, trusting rather than paranoid.

Re: Beatles Bashing

joannajewsom — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:10:26 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 04/21/2009 20:10

RFNAPLES wrote:

A popular song or band is a good song or band to the populous.

I don't understand why you felt the need to make such a redundant statement. A popular comedian is a good comedian to the populous. A popular restaurant is a place where people like to eat.

RFNAPLES wrote:

Condescending? Stop being a martyr. I said often our perceptions of good and bad are based upon our education, training and experience. Sometimes we need further education, training and experience to render proper judgments.

Yes, you were condescending. Read this direct quote:

RFNAPLES wrote:

You don't have to get on the bandwagon but don't ignore it either. If everybody thinks it is white while you think it is black, perhaps you need to reevaluate your position after further education, training and experience.

With the nonsensical color analogy, you told me that if everybody thinks the Beatles are great (everybody thinks it is white), while you think they are not (you think it is black), perhaps you need to reevaluate your position after education, training, and experience.

Basically, you just suggested that a lot of people think the Beatles are great, therefore I need to school myself to what's good music, and reevaluate my opinion. Perhaps I'm the one who needs education, training, and experience. Come on, if that's not condescending- as if I'm not educated enough to get the Beatles, or I need to do a semester at music appreciation school and get back to you- then I don't know what is.

And, yes, you did say our and we in the previous paragraph, but you conveniently skipped over the last paragraph when you specifically said you. Even if you were sincerely suggesting that you also need education, then you should have spoken for yourself. You're not making yourself seem any less condescending when you thrown in an insincere "me too."

Who are you kidding here? Stand by your statement. If you want to tell me that I'm not educated enough and that's why I'm wrong about the Beatles, just say it. Instead, you say stuff like "sometimes we need further education, training and experience to render proper judgments," try to beat around the bush, and act innocent when I call you out on it.

You can dress up your insults in all the passive-aggressive ways you want to, through use of pronouns that "include" yourself, but it's no mystery that what you were essentially doing was patting on me on the head like a child, and telling me, "oh, Joanna. Sometimes we need further education, training and experience so we can render proper judgments on the Beatles music. That's all you need, little one. Once you become a big girl, your opinion of the Beatles will be the same as everyone else."

Re: Beatles Bashing

RFNAPLES — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:09:08 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/21/2009 19:09

A popular song or band is a good song or band to the populous. Watch out for the bandwagon and the hawk, they may strike. 😉

Condescending? Stop being a martyr. I said often our perceptions of good and bad are based upon our education, training and experience. Sometimes we need further education, training and experience to render proper judgments.

Re: Beatles Bashing

joannajewsom — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:27:36 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 04/21/2009 16:27

RFNAPLES wrote:

joannajewsom wrote:

Now, if you want to talk about how objectively good the music is, that's a different conversation. However, that is a conversation that should be void of any discussion on popularity, because we would be talking about intrinsic value. For example, if we're talking about song structure, cord changes, and all that good stuff, how many people like the song is not going to matter, because that doesn't change the actual music.

Talk objectively about good music? So is a song in 3/4 time better than one in 4/4? Is a D chord better than a C chord? Intrinsic value of music or is that popularity?

Often our perceptions of good and bad are based upon our education, training and experience. Sometimes we need further education, training and experience to render proper judgments.

You don't have to get on the bandwagon but don't ignore it either. If everybody thinks it is white while you think it is black, perhaps you need to reevaluate your position after further education, training and experience.

I should have been clearer. If we were discussing how objectively good something is, we would be referring to how innovative or technically proficient, among other things, the musician/band is. That stuff is objective, and worthy of a discussion. For example, at one point in the history of rock, everyone was using 4/4, and then someone came along and wrote a rock song using 7/8 verse, 4/4 chorus, 3/4 bridge, and 7/8 verse again. That's something that's innovative and a sign of greatness; and, yes, innovation is something that we can discuss objectively, without going into whether or not that song with the innovative time signatures sounds good.

Although I'm not a big fan of metal, a lot of those bands are technically proficient, much more than some of my favorite bands. I can respect that and say that although I do not enjoy metal, the songs are breathtaking on a technical level; although there songs may not be my thing, I can recognize that they are really skilled musicians. That's something that's objective and worthy of a discussion. Beatles fans throw around all of their technical innovations when discussing how great they are, how they were shifting time signatures, using drone, using sitars (which is, apparently, the greatest thing since sliced bread), etc. when discussing how great they are, so I'm not introducing a foreign concept here.

Tell me why I should not ignore the bandwagon. Like I said, I only have one pair of ears for which I'm responsible, and the entire world thinking my favorite band is crappy, does not make the music any less enjoyable.

There could be a giant hawk in the sky, screaming its lungs out for all the world to hear. All 7 billion people could think it's the most painful sound in the world, and it could cause them to cover their ears, running away, shrieking in horror. Now, if the screams of that same giant hawk in the sky sound as pleasant to me as the sweet, melodious chirping of a virginal bluebird, I will not cover my ears. I will, instead, strap the loud and clear to me ear, and embrace that sound, and I will not once question whether this sound is pleasant or not, or whether I should follow the bandwagon, deem this sound horrible, and cover my ears, too. I couldn't care less.

The flipside could occur, and I can be the only who covers their ears when the giant hawk screams; and looking around at all the other 7 billion people smiling, strapping on their loud and clear, pointing their mics and turning up the amplifiers will not, for one second, make me reconsider my choice to cover my ears.

Here's Loud & Clear, for people who may not get the reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ4VNcMRLtY

You used the color analogy in a different thread, and I told you then why it is rubbish. The color of something is ultimately objective, even though we perceive things with our personal senses. We all experience gravity through our personal senses, but it's a fact that the thing which we choose to call 'gravity' exists, objectively speaking. To get back to your analogy, it's a fact that my television is black, and my socks are white. There's no opinion involved, unlike in judging the quality of music.

I can't just say a stop sign is red and that's my opinion. It's a fact that stop signs are red, and if I see a stop sign as blue, then I will be sent to the eye doctor, and rightfully so. The actual color of something (everyone seeing black and I'm seeing white) has a right and wrong answer. However, if we were discussing which color is prettier, black or white, that is completely subjective, and 20 people saying black against my 1 white does not mean that I should reevaluate my position on the beauty of the color, and that does not mean that I am wrong when I say it's prettier to me. Everyone saying black is prettier than white, does not make my personal opinion any less valid, since it's solely my opinion.

Stop being so condescending. Maybe you need further education, training, and experience before you go around making invalid analogies.

Re: Beatles Bashing

RFNAPLES — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:22:44 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 04/21/2009 14:22

joannajewsom wrote:

Re: Beatles Bashing

joannajewsom — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:34:56 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 04/21/2009 12:34

theharrisonfords wrote:

Well, so far through this whole discussion it's funny to see how everyone is emotionally attached to one opinion to another. I laugh at everyone's defensiveness.

You sound exactly the same. Are you laughing at yourself?

theharrisonfords wrote:

Even if the Velvet Underground, hypothetically, wrote the best rock music on the planet (it was proved by a hypothetical meter placed under a formula and blah blah blah), you couldn't say they were great because no one knew about them (how many records did they sell of VU&Nico on their first release?)

Well, I completely disagree. If my uncle and his friends made VU & Nico, I found it in his basement (in other words, I was the only one in the world to hear it), I would still say it's better than any Beatles album; and I have the right to say that, since I have a right to my opinion on music. I judge things on what comes out of the two speakers, not by how many people like it. I have one pair of ears, and that's the only pair in the world that I need to account for. It's not a democratic vote, when it comes to my opinion on music. The universal accessibility of music is irrelevant when it comes to what music we choose to listen to. The music we choose to listen only needs to be accessible to the one pair of ears we personally own.

Whether VU & Nico sold 1 copy, or 100 million copies, the same exact sounds are coming out of the speaker. That's what matters. VU are much more popular now than they were 40 years ago. Is their music great now, but it wasn't back then? Of course not, because it's the same exact sounds coming out of the speakers. We obviously have a different idea of "great music," so you can't tell me, or anyone else, that I can't say it's great, because we're not adhering to your personal opinion on "greatness." Personally, telling me that the Beatles sold 1 billion albums doesn't make the sounds coming out of the speaker any greater. If the roles were reversed and VU sold 1 billion copies and Sgt. Pepper's 1 million, a lot of people would be on the other side of the conversation right now. I just think that's silly, and I find it hard to value the opinion of anyone when something that is a possibility, because it makes me question whether their opinion is truly their own, or someone else's.

I like your chart, I respect your opinion on music, and I don't want to give the impression that I think you don't think for yourself. However, the argument you're making right now is one that justifies such bandwagon jumping.

Now, if you want to talk about how objectively good the music is, that's a different conversation. However, that is a conversation that should be void of any discussion on popularity, because we would be talking about intrinsic value. For example, if we're talking about song structure, cord changes, and all that good stuff, how many people like the song is not going to matter, because that doesn't change the actual music.

Basically, I don't see any conversation in which popularity is relevant, unless we're arguing over who was the most popular. Even bringing popularity into a conversation on who's music was the most accessible is very shaky, since a) a lot of bands don't attempt to "sell" their music to people as much as other bands, b) a lot of bands don't have the same marketing opportunities to begin with c) a million other factors to consider.
Anyway, arguing over popularity is a silly conversation to have, since something like that is completely objective and based solely on numbers. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, 'popular' and 'great' are synonymous. Maybe I should check my thesaurus, because it seems like I'm always told I'm wrong when I treat them as two different concepts. .

We've had similar conversations in other threads. The Beatles, while a great band, were popular for MANY reasons other than their music. Anyone who denies this, denies history and the way in which pop culture works.

theharrisonfords wrote:

Secondly, in a more superficial analogy, the Beatles are like the old sports legends. At the time, could be agreed that Johnny Unitas could be considered to be the greatest football player? Sure. Could it be agreed that the best one now (or was) John Elway (I'm a Bronc fan)? However, there is no real way to compare the two realistically. Even though Johnny Unitas was the 'greatest' then, you can't compare him to now. 1., he potentially rewrote the position of what a quarterback could do. 2., because of him, strategy about the game changed. Could Tom Brady still be successful if he didn't have the spread offense? Could Joe Montana still be great if he didn't have the West Coast? None of these can be answered, because these alternate scenarios could never take place. In music, the same thing is applied, would the Beatles survive in today's musical world? Who knows? But that's not the point, the point is that people still ravage over them in some way; worship to damnation-- that alone expresses greatness. Some forty-five years after the fact, people are still fascinated in them, like a small scale Jesus (how's that for blasphemy).

Well, I won't go too deep into this analogy. I will say that comparing sports to art is invalid. Football, by definition, is competitive; music is not. A football player must try to defeat the other. Without anyone to outrun, outthrow, outtackle, we could never know how they great they are. Musicians do not have any obligation to outdo anyone else, and they do not need to outsing, outdrum, outriff anyone on a field to prove their greatness. A band doesn't need someone else to play against.

This doesn't work because out of 1 million artists in the world, there could be 1 million different musical goals. All sports players are looking to win a given game. There probably are some athletes who just want to get their 2 interceptions and make some money, but that is considered unsportsmanlike, and that does not change the nature, and only point, of the game. In the bigger picture, it's safe to say that all football teams have the ultimate goal of the super bowl. There is no one musical super bowl. One band's personal super bowl may be going platinum. Another band's personal super bowl may be just writing an honest song. Another band's personal super bowl may be making the fastest speed metal song. This is beside the point you were making, but I just wanted to point out the dangers with a music/sports analogy, since what you attempt to attribute to sports can not be applied to music.

Anyway, to get back to your point, music is timeless, sports are temporal. No one is sitting around, watching old Johnny Unitas games, and giving it five stars. Once a season is over, it's on to the next. It's not like people listened to Sgt. Pepper's in '67, then never touched it again once '68 came around. People today are not only listening to music from 2009, but they are only following the sports scene of 2009, because it's the only season that can be experienced. A game is played once, and it's over. A song can be played millions of times, and it's more than likely recorded, so a song is never truly finished in the same way a sports game is finished. "Venus in Furs" will always exist, while the 13th Super Bowl is over and will probably never be watched again unless you're some bored football historian. I can go pick up an album from 69 and 2009, and listen to them both right now, and a engage with them in the same manner. In a sense, VU and, say, Sufjan Stevens can be put on the same "field", unlike Unitas and Elway. Oddly enough, I will argue for the Beatles and say that they are surviving in today's musical world, since their music is still being listened to, and the musical world is not as temporal as the sports world.

Okay, I went too deep into that analogy, and strayed away from your original point.

I will say that people obsessing over them, whether it be worship or damnation does not alone express greatness. What if it were just damnation, would that prove that they were great musicians? The fact that they are still huge cultural icons, just proves that they were able to make their way into the international consciousness, which they were able to do for MANY reasons other than their music.

People are still talking over Genghis Khan, Nixon, MC Hammer, and that doesn't prove that their great. People worship Jesus, some 2,000 years after the "fact" and we don't even know for sure if he existed as portrayed, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that he exists as the being that people worship him as (god). People worship god, but that doesn't alone prove that god is great. How can we call something great, when we can't even say if it exists in the first place? Some 45 years from now, people will be talking about George Bush. Does that mean that he's great? People are still talking about the Pet Rock, for Pete's sake, but that doesn't mean it was a great product.

theharrisonfords wrote:

As for overrated/underrated/rightrated, that stuff is irrelevant. No argument is going to make it stronger or weaker. You could thrash at the Beatles all day, bitching about how they never did anything until Rubber Soul, and King Crimson is so much better because etc., it doesn't matter much to me.

I think it does matter to you, or you would have not responded.

theharrisonfords wrote:

My contention is that regardless of what you think of them, you just have to accept what the Beatles mean and stand for rock and roll. If you disagree with that, pick up a guitar, form a band, and oust them.

I'm too high to go on. Don't you know it's goin to be all right? Shit.

Oh, I accept what the Beatles mean to rock and roll, the same way that I accept what Jesus means to Christians. It's just that I can see past the indoctrination and view their music for what it is.

Why do I have to pick up a guitar? I think Star Wars sucks, does that mean that I have to go make my own film before I can make that statement? "You think Bush sucked as president? Why don't you go be president, and see if I can do a better job?" Would you say that to someone? No. You're just being ridiculous.

I have no intention on forming a band, and I don't want to be the Beatles. I don't see how that would be relevant to the conversation if I did make better music than them. I have a right to speak "negatively" about a band as much as anyone who has a right to speak positively about a band. If you're not obliged to form your own band, then neither am I.