Remove one from the top 100, and add one. Which do you pick? - Music

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

sethmadsen wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

I think they will remain culturally relevant almost certainly. The cultural phenomenon of The Beatles may never be truly repeated as it was a perfect storm of elements. All I meant was their consistent consideration as "The Greatest Rock Band/Artists Ever" or whatever you want to call it -- I think -- will fade significantly over the next 30 to 50 years, something like that. Just my opinion, because there is not a ton of emotional/conceptual substance of great significance to most of their music (there are exceptions, I just mean the vast majority).

Now this statement I fully support. Perhaps this while time we were stuck on semantics. I think they already have lost such a place. I hope you got my sarcasm on they were the first to do everything.

AfterHours wrote:

I would agree but also disagree (kind of). Mozart was the most economical, probably ever, and more often than not, probably produced the most emotional depth per note than any composer ever has. Though of course Mahler was much more elaborate and unleashed tremendous means to build works of gargantuan scale and ambition and emotional depth. But Mozart came up with more masterpieces or near masterpieces, and in several genres, whereas Mahler probably didn't produce any quite on that level outside his Symphonies. Beethoven, was near but not quite Mozart in the above economical regard, but also was capable of elaborately detailed compositions that foretold Mahler (such as his late Quartets, Piano Sonatas, 6th and 9th Symphonies...). Beethoven is the greatest artist that's ever lived.

I'll cover The Beatles/Velvet Underground/Doors part as soon as I have some more time, though there might be only so far I will be willing to go with it as it might just come down to a difference in how we each fundamentally perceive what's "emotionally/conceptually significant" and what constitutes "depth". In the past, I've wasted a ton of print on this sort of thing before where the person(s) just didn't seem to understand precisely enough where I was actually coming from, no matter the examples/explanations I provided, and I just ended off not sure if they were just refusing to see my point of view for fear it would hurt their position or if they truly just didn't know what I meant. In short, I've never seen these Beatles arguments produce much in the way of progress so these days I try to minimize them or keep them short when they come up; make a point or two and if still no agreement, then agree to disagree, etc. In any case, as soon as I can, I'll relay my views and will see if you agree partially or wholly, or not at all.

Fair enough. I was mostly looking for a in my opinion, this VU or Doors song is superior to anything the Beatles did to see if I could understand more your point of view.

Also I apologize if I sounded like I was comparing quality of Beethoven to Beatles when I thought I was comparing cultural significance. Beethoven of course has the upper hand on many levels but as we both said he was the first to write what he wanted at an independent level. The cultural significance of the Beatles can't really be denied either.

It's sometimes difficult to not have someone think you've fallen into the Beatles are the only band ever mindset if you just say something positive about them.

Re: Beethoven/Beatles ... No worries, and I didn't confuse you with saying they were truly "the first"

Re: VU, The Doors, Beatles ... Ok, no problem, I will respond to this part soon (perhaps later tonight)
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Onater

Gender: Male
Age: 24
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada

Well, this thread derailed quickly.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Oh yeah - AC/DC and Guns and Roses suck.

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

sethmadsen wrote:

Oh yeah - AC/DC and Guns and Roses suck.

Apparently this will now officially put the thread "back on the rails" ... ... now that we're no longer discussing what often tops the Overall Chart and other All Time Charts, in relation to the likes of Beethoven, Mozart, etc.

I'm glad we're sticking to what's important again Laughing

_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

Quote:

I am curious to understand what examples you have from Velvet Underground or The Doors, that place them so much higher than the Beatles' more intriguing work Revolver and on. And when I say examples, I mean talk about them cause I've heard most if not all of both of their discographies. I'm not trying to have a pissing contest, rather discussing why you think it would be so

.

You can test it for yourself if you examine their emotional depth and ask yourself when you're listening to their music: how significant an experience is this, really? How swept away or immersed am I in this experience? How profound is this? How emotionally devastating are these sad songs? How much experiential depth is being expressed? Etc. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with The Beatles music. It is perfectly fine for what it is. My only point. generally, is that it is short on emotional/conceptual depth (for the most part). The Beatles songs, for the most part, in their early career are effective but are generally very basic, superficial examples of cheerfulness/enthusiasm/elation, "falling in love", or whatever. I don't think there's much of an argument about this. But if there is, compare their enthusiastic songs to, say, the much more invigorating White Soul by Green, or goodness, Bach's Brandenburg Concertos (follow every instrumental line of action) or Mozart's Jupiter Symphony (not only highly invigorating but also breathlessly jumps between a stunning array of emotional dualities), or even Dan Deacon's Bromst (layers and layers of relentless elation amidst shape-shifting structures and intricate compositions), to hear such emotions with a much greater gamut of expression.

The Beatles started to branch out and upgrade their art to a slight degree with Help and Rubber Soul, and then Revolver. Though containing the fantastic Tomorrow Never Knows and a few other good songs, it is very uneven and, ultimately, more a novelty act than a significant emotional/conceptual experience (and not even a significant novelty act, like say, one of Frank Zappa's best albums, which takes such a concept to a much more elaborate and extraordinary degree). Listen to the songs and observe just how "thin" many of them sound and how many end before becoming a truly complete experience. For the most part they play their guitars in an unemotional/unexciting way (weak chord strikes, thin, lack of impact in their sound). For the most part, the drums are utterly mediocre, simply following along with the beat. There is very little that is interesting about the rhythmic variation or thrust of the band (TNK a notable exception, Love You Too and I'm Only Sleeping also, if to a lesser extent). For the most part, the vocal performances could hardly be less creative and more mundane: basic expressions that do not penetrate and relay the experiential nuances of such experiences. Ask yourself if these are really immersive and emotionally/conceptually involving experiences of extraordinary merit. For comparison, how does For No One compare to the emotional/conceptual depth of Bob Dylan's Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands or Van Morrison's Beside You? How comparatively immersive and emotionally/conceptually involving is it? How does the strange trip and journey of Tomorrow Never Knows compare to, say, Pink Floyd's Interstellar Overdrive? (It might if it kept going and expanding instead of ending so soon) ... How does Eleanor Rigby compare to the creative "baroque" rhythmic sweep and the suspenseful and strange atmosphere of Love's Red Telephone? Or the orchestrated, anemic, poetic loneliness of such songs from Nick Drake's Five Leaves Left?

To be continued...

That's all I have time for right now. I'll add more later, including delving into The Doors/Velvet Underground a bit.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

AfterHours wrote:

Apparently this will now officially put the thread "back on the rails" ... ... now that we're no longer discussing what often tops the Overall Chart and other All Time Charts, in relation to the likes of Beethoven, Mozart, etc.

I'm glad we're sticking to what's important again Laughing

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

AfterHours wrote:

Quote:

I am curious to understand what examples you have from Velvet Underground or The Doors, that place them so much higher than the Beatles' more intriguing work Revolver and on. And when I say examples, I mean talk about them cause I've heard most if not all of both of their discographies. I'm not trying to have a pissing contest, rather discussing why you think it would be so

.

You can test it for yourself if you examine their emotional depth and ask yourself when you're listening to their music: how significant an experience is this, really? How swept away or immersed am I in this experience? How profound is this? How emotionally devastating are these sad songs? How much experiential depth is being expressed? Etc. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with The Beatles music. It is perfectly fine for what it is. My only point. generally, is that it is short on emotional/conceptual depth (for the most part). The Beatles songs, for the most part, in their early career are effective but are generally very basic, superficial examples of cheerfulness/enthusiasm/elation, "falling in love", or whatever. I don't think there's much of an argument about this. But if there is, compare their enthusiastic songs to, say, the much more invigorating White Soul by Green, or goodness, Bach's Brandenburg Concertos (follow every instrumental line of action) or Mozart's Jupiter Symphony (not only highly invigorating but also breathlessly jumps between a stunning array of emotional dualities), or even Dan Deacon's Bromst (layers and layers of relentless elation amidst shape-shifting structures and intricate compositions), to hear such emotions with a much greater gamut of expression.

The Beatles started to branch out and upgrade their art to a slight degree with Help and Rubber Soul, and then Revolver. Though containing the fantastic Tomorrow Never Knows and a few other good songs, it is very uneven and, ultimately, more a novelty act than a significant emotional/conceptual experience (and not even a significant novelty act, like say, one of Frank Zappa's best albums, which takes such a concept to a much more elaborate and extraordinary degree). Listen to the songs and observe just how "thin" many of them sound and how many end before becoming a truly complete experience. For the most part they play their guitars in an unemotional/unexciting way (weak chord strikes, thin, lack of impact in their sound). For the most part, the drums are utterly mediocre, simply following along with the beat. There is very little that is interesting about the rhythmic variation or thrust of the band (TNK a notable exception, Love You Too and I'm Only Sleeping also, if to a lesser extent). For the most part, the vocal performances could hardly be less creative and more mundane: basic expressions that do not penetrate and relay the experiential nuances of such experiences. Ask yourself if these are really immersive and emotionally/conceptually involving experiences of extraordinary merit. For comparison, how does For No One compare to the emotional/conceptual depth of Bob Dylan's Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands or Van Morrison's Beside You? How comparatively immersive and emotionally/conceptually involving is it? How does the strange trip and journey of Tomorrow Never Knows compare to, say, Pink Floyd's Interstellar Overdrive? (It might if it kept going and expanding instead of ending so soon) ... How does Eleanor Rigby compare to the creative "baroque" rhythmic sweep and the suspenseful and strange atmosphere of Love's Red Telephone? Or the orchestrated, anemic, poetic loneliness of such songs from Nick Drake's Five Leaves Left?

To be continued...

That's all I have time for right now. I'll add more later, including delving into The Doors/Velvet Underground a bit.

Wow, really well said.

I totally get what you mean now.

Penny Lane is only interesting because I've read up on it... on the surface/just listening to it I wouldn't get hints of surrealism and to be honest it just sounds like a graduated version of their other pop songs.

Some of their early records, Paul is able to get that almost Little Richard heart and soul of singing in him, but yeah, mostly just pop songs and while the singing is fine and well, it is less emotional. I mean there are songs though.

And you might not even have to get into the Doors... Jim Morrison's vocals are easily more emotionally powerful than anything the Beatles vocally did. Sometimes he goes on about anal sex live, which is kind of ridiculous, but I think the bit about raping mother earth and that whole thing (if you haven't had the chance yet, watch Doors live at hollywood bowl cause that performance is quite the emotional performance).

Perhaps this statement is a way to sum up the conversation?

The Beatles, for a pop group, went way above and beyond your typical pop group by discovering and implementing new sounds and concepts to their music, but they didn't invent those concepts and they were first and foremost a pop group, and perhaps earned the title Rubber Soul. While they have outstanding performances, discovered interesting musical landscapes, they will always be that pop group.

By the way, I remember learning that's what the Motown group said about the Beatles... they had no Soul... they called it soul so superficial you could bounce it like rubber... hehe (so says their Anthology book).

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

Ok cool, looks like thats a wrap then. Good summation of The Beatles Smile

If one collected their most extraordinary songs into a single album, you'd have a pretty amazing work.

Also, if one is adventurous enough, one finds several alike/fairly similar songs/albums that clearly surpassed and were far more ambitious/extraodinary than even their very best, which is I guess why I'm not overly enthusiastic about them or even think most of their work to be particularly essential from a purely musical standpoint. But I do still really like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Rd, various songs from White Album, Magical Mystery Tour and some songs before that period.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings