The Beatles

From joannajewsom 10/25/2009 11:51 | #6892

Saying that "this is not up to debate" goes against the very nature of art and this website. And Power pop is a stale genre, mate. This isn't the 70s. You've gotta come up with something more impressive than that because, quite frankly, I'm not looking forward to new Weezer album at all. For someone who boasts about their contributions, as if anyone here cares/is not aware of them, you seem to know nothing about their contributions. Saying they didn't follow the crowd is ignoring the fact that a lot of their so-called innovations stemmed from the ideas of others-- Zappa, Dylan, Stockhausen, Beat poets, Shankar, AMM, Buddy Holly, Beach Boys, the Byrds, Yoko Ono, and I could go on and on. Eastern influences, musique concrete, and anything else you want to name did not start with them. They were going along with the manner in which rock music was evolving just as much as they were contributing to that evolution. But at the end of the day, I judge music by how it sounds, not by the legacy/borderline mythology surrounding it.

From Robert Anton Wilson TOP 100 COMMENTER 06/14/2011 21:12 | #23115

Why are The Beatles so popular? Beyond the musical qualities, social and historical significance of the Beatles music and of Beatlemania as a phenomenon in and of itself, one of the main reason for the Beatles’ popularity is the diversity of their output and how The Beatles are likely one or the only band for which you can find a song –a good song- for any occasion of your life. No matter what your main musical taste and no matter how much of a purist you might be in your own niche, it is unlikely that there is not at least one -and likely at least 4 or 5- Beatles song –and great ones at that- that will not manage to cross the border and be deemed acceptable to you. I think there are only two other bands that can boast of that, The Rolling Stones and The Kinks. In the case of the Rolling Stones, given that they are the Bad boys of Rock’n Roll their less than clean image acts as a stop from some people/audience (and let's face it, they did write more ordinary than extraordinary songs). In the case of the Kinks, I think that the reason why they were overshadowed by the other two (and others) is that while they do have diversity in their repertoire, the bulk of their output is more homogeneous than that of the Beatles or the Stones which means that if you don't like it, you don't like 90% of their stuff.

Here is what I mean by the exceptional diversity of the Beatles:

If you like Rock’n Roll, you likely are into “Twist and Shout” or “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” by the Beatles (Fans of Elvis)

If you like it harder, you are more likely to be into “Helter Skelter” or “Revolution” instead. (Fans of Metallica)

If you like it softer rock, you likely are into “Yesterday”. (Fans of Air Supply)

If you are into psychedelic, you definitely are into “Strawberry Fields Forever” (Fans of Pink Floyd)

If you are into that kind of music that just seems to get SO much better in an altered state -very advanced altered state- then you are likely into “I Am the Walrus” or “Revolution No 9” (Fans of Captain Beefheart)

If you are into melodic songwriting you are likely into “Norwegian Wood” or “Across the Universe”

If you are into non-pretentious basic rock tunes then your are likely into “Get Back” or “Come together” (Fans of Aerosmith)

If you like prog or epic songs you are likely into “A Day in the Life”

... I will stop now because my list goes on for 5 pages like that and I only covered half the repertoire so far ...

I am not a die hard fan of The Beatles myself, but I must come to admit that they have produced much good stuff and much, much more exceptional stuff than weak stuff. If you are not convinced about the Beatles yet, it is likely that you haven't heard your song yet but trust me, it is there.

If you fail to get my point by now, then the Beatles song that really is you probably is “I’m a Loser” (Edited)

I think the problem here lies with personal taste and the way people say The Beatles ARE the best band of all time. It's not a fact, merely an opinion shared by a lot of people who like POPULAR music. I don't think there is any point arguing about it actually, you can't change someones taste in music, just don't think that because they are the most popular band, they are to everyone elses taste, it's just not true! Personally, I do prefer bands primarily influenced by The Velvet Underground, Kraftwerk and Joy Division, but I would never say they ARE the most influential bands of all time, that's just what floats my boat :)

From joannajewsom 04/18/2009 03:31 | #3617

Let's not forget "Helter Skelter" as the first heavy metal track. I've heard it all, but the worse would probably be the claim that the Beatles invented hip-hop, simply because they sampled some audio on a few tracks. If only everyone were as generous when crediting every other musician/band as they are with the Beatles. We could draw a line from almost every form of rock music back to a lot of the bands from the 60s, if we tracked influence Beatlemaniac style.

From joannajewsom 10/26/2009 01:45 | #6904

My comment was that those bands influenced better bands and their influence was more widespread across several genres, not that they necessarily influenced more bands. I have no interest in counting number of bands someone has influenced and such a thing is not even reasonable to attempt, so any "this band influenced more bands" can never be proven. I'm interested in how varied and widespread over several genres the influence is and the artistic merit of these contributions. Inspiring 100s of pop/rock bands doesn't equal widespread when considering genres. I would say this is true in both cases for Zappa, Eno, and VU. With the Beach Boys and Dylan, I would say their music is better and those they influenced were better, although the widespread over several genres wouldn't apply. Zappa was very influential in everything from satire, to fusion, to most international prog, to noise, to modern classical, to even the Beatles and their attempts at incorporating avant-garde music. VU influenced glam, punk, krautrock, noise, no wave, post-punk, and a lot of experimental and alternative rock, and so on. Eno was very influential in electronic music, art rock, new wave, no wave, and considered to be the pioneer of ambient music. I would say their influence is more widespread than the Beatles on pop/rock. And since I have my opinion on what bands are better (as demonstrated with the Jesus and Mary Chain to Oasis comparison) my argument is valid, because better band is subjective. Telling me Zappa didn't influence better bands goes against the subjective nature of art. I don't mention these names to refute the claim that the Beatles were influential or made great contributions. Here: they were influential and great (although there are bands I think are much greater). I mention these names to refute your claim that there is no debate that they made the greatest contribution. There are other bands/artists who made amazing contributions, like the ones I named. Unless you can definitively measure contribution with a ruler, it can be debated. Unless you can scientifically prove that they did make the greatest contribution then, of course, this can be debated. And if we're considering the artistic merit of these contributions, of course it can be debated. Artistic merit is not objective. Everything can be debated. That's all I'm saying. I like the Beatles, but I do wonder if I would be able to enjoy them more if people didn't shove them down my throat.