Beatles Bashing

[joannajewsom]

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.

[RFNAPLES]

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.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

[joannajewsom]

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

[RFNAPLES]

Calm yourself. It doesn't matter if we disagree! The world will keep going around.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

[AngryAchilles]

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+

[RFNAPLES]

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.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

[theharrisonfords]

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. :roll:

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 <wink>, 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]

[joannajewsom]

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.

[Mr.Music]

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!

[NowhereMan]

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.)