Beatles Bashing

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
joannajewsom




Location: Philadelphia

  • #21
  • Posted: 04/20/2009 21:32
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlyAxdv...re=related

Be careful, Elston. This could happen to you.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
theharrisonfords





  • #22
  • Posted: 04/20/2009 23:41
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
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.

Now, when it comes to liking or not liking the Beatles, it really doesn't matter. Personally, they are my favorite band and in my opinion, they are one of the greatest bands out there. Now, a lot of things should be taken into consideration when arguing for or against this band.

First, admit it, the Beatles were pretty fucking big back in their hey day. As one friend's father said to me "There were only three bands/artists that were unapproacable in the sixties: Bob Dylan, the Stones, and the Beatles. " With Elvis really being the only contender, no other musical force was as recognized, realised, or popular than the Beatles, and greatness is influenced heavily on impact. 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?) Granted, people who know about music are more likely to know about VU, but the Beatles broke that barrier as well, and they were good.

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).

Now, I'm sure you could argue this, and it probably doesn't make sense (it is 420, you know). Some things become really popular within a culture, and fizzle out, slowly escaping society's realm of thought (countless bands), some slip beneath the waves only to be passively great (Velvet Underground), and some just become popular and stay forever, like the Beatles, Star Wars, Babe Ruth and Ketchup.

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. 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.
Back to top
Detroit Rock Citizen




Age: 60
Location: Livonia, Michigan U.S.A.
United States

  • #23
  • Posted: 04/21/2009 03:13
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
theharrisonfords wrote:


I'm too high to go on


I couldn't tell Wink
_________________
To each his reach but if I don't cop it ain't mine to have - George Clinton


My chart
http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=689
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
  • Visit poster's website
Elston




Canada

  • #24
  • Posted: 04/21/2009 04:18
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
joannajewsom wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlyAxdv...re=related

Be careful, Elston. This could happen to you.


Eep. Damn pigs.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
joannajewsom




Location: Philadelphia

  • #25
  • Posted: 04/21/2009 12:34
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
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.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RFNAPLES
Level 8


Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
United States

  • #26
  • Posted: 04/21/2009 14:22
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
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.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
  • Send email
  • Visit poster's website
joannajewsom




Location: Philadelphia

  • #27
  • Posted: 04/21/2009 16:27
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
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.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RFNAPLES
Level 8


Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
United States

  • #28
  • Posted: 04/21/2009 19:09
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
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. Wink

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.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
  • Send email
  • Visit poster's website
joannajewsom




Location: Philadelphia

  • #29
  • Posted: 04/21/2009 20:10
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
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."
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RFNAPLES
Level 8


Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
United States

  • #30
  • Posted: 04/21/2009 20:52
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
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.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
  • Send email
  • Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5


 

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum
Thread Bashing Robert Anton Wilson Lounge
Album of the day (#3488): Beatles For... albummaster Music
Album of the day (#1759): Beatles For... albummaster Music
Album of the day (#3671): With The Be... albummaster Music
Album of the day (#2089): With The Be... albummaster Music

 
Back to Top