rdhull said:

Im talking about the here and now in THIS thread. Why do yall always want to bring up the history of the world in certain threads? lol

And for what its worth, that other section is FULL of top 40 discussion. Its like teen-beat and shit.

I know what's in the other section, it's the one I mostly look at. That's where I got the "real music by real musicians" from, people always saying it in threads about whatever is mainstream popular who think they have some kind of superior taste because they don't listen to the hits.

MickyDolenz said:

rdhull said:

Im talking about the here and now in THIS thread. Why do yall always want to bring up the history of the world in certain threads? lol

And for what its worth, that other section is FULL of top 40 discussion. Its like teen-beat and shit.

I know what's in the other section, it's the one I mostly look at. That's where I got the "real music by real musicians" from, people always saying it in threads about whatever is mainstream popular who think they have some kind of superior taste because they don't listen to the hits.

They think their pop tarts are doing the real music by musicans thing? Britney, Perry, Rihanna etc?

rdhull said:

They think their pop tarts are doing the real music by musicans thing? Britney, Perry, Rihanna etc?

No the snobs say they're not "real music". That Roxette comment 214 made was basically the same kind of thing that goes on there all the time. They think all the good music was made before rap took over. There's a thread right now about why is Justin Bieber popular, and the usual kind of insults are in it.

MickyDolenz said:

rdhull said:

They think their pop tarts are doing the real music by musicans thing? Britney, Perry, Rihanna etc?

No the snobs say they're not "real music". That Roxette comment 214 made was basically the same kind of thing that goes on there all the time. They think all the good music was made before rap took over. There's a thread right now about why is Justin Bieber popular, and the usual kind of insults are in it.

Yeah, I saw that thread. Im not saying pop music isnt good because it is and has its purpose. Im saying that Roxette wasnt all that, epecially if you think theyre better than the Beatles. That aint snobbery imho, thats common sense (sorry Moonsy lol). Hell, let it be snobbery and lable me one if that was the case.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Too much ignorance on this thread. Obviously they're a great band. You either get them or you don't, and if you don't it's your loss! They also probably invented more genres than anyone else. I hear heavy metal in Helter Skelter, Lo-fi in Long Long Long, dance-rock in Tomorrow Never Knows, funk rock in Good Morning Good Morning.

They made the best contribution to art rock of any band. But hell, what do I know when I conjecture that one of the songs off Zappa's debut album ('66) is hip hop!

(if you don't know your genres then you don't know shit from shinola and you shouldn't even be commenting here) goodbye

This is where I think it gets silly. Funk rock in "Good Morning Good Morning"? Dance rock in "Tomorrow Never Knows"? Heavy metal in "Helter Skelter"? The Beatles did not invent those genres.

Not that RateYourMusic is a perfect source, but highlighting Jimi Hendrix and Funkadelic as the pioneers of funk rock, Black Sabbath and others for metal, and Liquid Liquid and ESG for dance-punk (the closest thing to dance rock listed) seems a lot more appropriate. The page for The Beatles highlights their contributions as pop rock, merseybeat, psychedelic pop, rock&roll, rock, and pop, which seems much more appropriate.

They get enough praise without being miscredited with inventing genres they had little to do with. If you want to argue that they inspired artists in these genres, that's fair game. But they didn't invent funk rock or heavy metal or dance-punk/dance-rock. What else did they invent? Synthpop? Crunkcore? Sliced bread?

rdhull said:

MickyDolenz said:

No the snobs say they're not "real music". That Roxette comment 214 made was basically the same kind of thing that goes on there all the time. They think all the good music was made before rap took over. There's a thread right now about why is Justin Bieber popular, and the usual kind of insults are in it.

Yeah, I saw that thread. Im not saying pop music isnt good because it is and has its purpose. Im saying that Roxette wasnt all that, epecially if you think theyre better than the Beatles. That aint snobbery imho, thats common sense (sorry Moonsy lol). Hell, let it be snobbery and lable me one if that was the case.

I mentioned Roxette for this reason. No artist should be above criticism, nor should any artist be beneath praise. I could have gotten on a snobby pedestal and said "gimme The Velvet Underground" or "gimme Can" (both of whom I love), but my point is that there is nothing wrong with preferring Roxette to The Beatles, just as there is nothing wrong with preferring The Beatles to every other artist. Where it gets ugly (and baseless, IMO) is when there is some apocryphal hierarchy imposed on music taste, as if we all should adhere to preferring artists A, B, and C to artists D, E, and F lest we violate some sacred code.

I still lub you, RD. I don't mind people clowning me for liking Roxette (or Kylie Minogue, or Girls Aloud, or Technotronic) as long as they realize these sorts of discussions are ultimately silly in the end.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Too much ignorance on this thread. Obviously they're a great band. You either get them or you don't, and if you don't it's your loss!

I feel the same way.You either like something or you don't.I don't even spend time "defending" the Beatles or explaining why I think they're so great.Their rich legacy and continued popularity speaks for itself

Moonbeam said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Too much ignorance on this thread. Obviously they're a great band. You either get them or you don't, and if you don't it's your loss! They also probably invented more genres than anyone else. I hear heavy metal in Helter Skelter, Lo-fi in Long Long Long, dance-rock in Tomorrow Never Knows, funk rock in Good Morning Good Morning.

They made the best contribution to art rock of any band. But hell, what do I know when I conjecture that one of the songs off Zappa's debut album ('66) is hip hop!

(if you don't know your genres then you don't know shit from shinola and you shouldn't even be commenting here) goodbye

This is where I think it gets silly. Funk rock in "Good Morning Good Morning"? Dance rock in "Tomorrow Never Knows"? Heavy metal in "Helter Skelter"? The Beatles did not invent those genres.

Not that RateYourMusic is a perfect source, but highlighting Jimi Hendrix and Funkadelic as the pioneers of funk rock, Black Sabbath and others for metal, and Liquid Liquid and ESG for dance-punk (the closest thing to dance rock listed) seems a lot more appropriate. The page for The Beatles highlights their contributions as pop rock, merseybeat, psychedelic pop, rock&roll, rock, and pop, which seems much more appropriate.

They get enough praise without being miscredited with inventing genres they had little to do with. If you want to argue that they inspired artists in these genres, that's fair game. But they didn't invent funk rock or heavy metal or dance-punk/dance-rock. What else did they invent? Synthpop? Crunkcore? Sliced bread?

Shit-talker extraordinaire!

Yes that's a bit silly, the idea that all music comes from the Beatles is just asking for trouble. Although Heavy Metal is defo in Helter Skelter in the same way it's in You Really Got Me by the Kinks.

I suppose there's a similarity between Good Morning, Good Morning and, say, Life by Sly & The Family Stone but Life isn't exactly a funk track now is it? It's interesting to see how both bands kind of intersect there but go in different directions.

More importantly I was just listening to A Day in the Life and marvelling at it, any doubters on here really should just sit down and listen to it with an open mind. I think Prince might have been the only other person who reached peak fame at their most musically avant garde while still managing to be very pop.

[Edited 6/27/17 16:24pm]

I will qualify what I mean by dance-rock, since the term is a misnomer for something else. Big Beat is how I should have described 'Tomorrow Never Knows'. It's not acknowledged as such on wikipedia, but you can't believe everything on there. It definitely sounds like some of 'The Chemical Brothers' to me', a band defined as dance-rock in a music publication.

What does alternative rock mean? Post punk? Those are genres that don't mean a thing to me. Also, any genre with 'psychedelic' in the title shouldn't be a thing! It's difficult enough defining a musical style without bringing LSD into it

Isn't Big Beat like, Fatboy Slim?

I do remember that big Chemical Brothers track with Noel Gallagher that was going for a massive psychedelic sound, I suppose you could draw a line from Tomorrow Never Knows to there but it's not like Tomorrow Never Knows was without precedent. The Kinks I believe had the first hit single with a drone with See my Friends, The Velvet Underground were knocking about and so on and so on. I don't think the Beatles were imagining people raving in turn of the century clubs to Tomorrow Never Knows.

Although God knows, maybe they were with all the LSD they were on

[Edited 6/27/17 16:38pm]

jaawwnn said:

Yes that's a bit silly, the idea that all music comes from the Beatles is just asking for trouble. Although Heavy Metal is defo in Helter Skelter in the same way it's in You Really Got Me by the Kinks.

I suppose there's a similarity between Good Morning, Good Morning and, say, Life by Sly & The Family Stone but Life isn't exactly a funk track now is it? It's interesting to see how both bands kind of intersect there but go in different directions.

More importantly I was just listening to A Day in the Life and marvelling at it, any doubters on here really should just sit down and listen to it with an open mind. I think Prince might have been the only other person who reached peak fame at their most musically avant garde while still managing to be very pop.

[Edited 6/27/17 16:24pm]

You Really Got Me sounds barely hard rock, and there was plenty of that around that time. Listen to The Who live, Isle of Wight or Live at Leeds, and you'll hear how loud and bass-heavy hard rock can be without crossing over to metal!

I think Robert Plant once acknowledged debt to Helter Skelter. Led Zepp and Black Sabbath were probably the first metal bands and they're both on record as claiming the Beatles as major influence. Don't forget Sgt. Pepper came out '67.

fortuneandserendipity said:

You Really Got Me sounds barely hard rock, and there was plenty of that around that time. Listen to The Who live, Isle of Wight or Live at Leeds, and you'll hear how loud and bass-heavy hard rock can be without crossing over to metal!

I think Robert Plant once acknowledged debt to Helter Skelter. Led Zepp and Black Sabbath were probably the first metal bands and they're both on record as claiming the Beatles as major influence. Don't forget Sgt. Pepper came out '67.

Well yeah but it was 1964, give them a break! The Who and Led Zepp all came later. The only competition I can think of that early is Rumble by Link Wray.

fortuneandserendipity said:

What does alternative rock mean?

Don't know. I think it was called "college rock" in the early 1980s, because it was groups that were played on college radio stations. Then when Top 40 started playing some of it around 1990, I think it was labeled alternative rock to differentiate it from the popular groups of the time like Def Leppard, Mötley Crüe, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Cinderella, etc. and the older rock bands who were making power ballads during the 1980s like Starship, Heart, Toto, REO Speedwagon, Journey, Foreigner, Chicago, Styx, etc. I guess it was an "alternative" to these kinds of acts because it sounded different and they had a different image. I suppose they were also alternative to 1990s bands like Hootie & The Blowfish, Black Crowes, & Spin Doctors who had a more classic rock sound. I never really understood the terms "arena rock" or "corporate rock" either. It just seemed to refer to bands who sold a lot of records and not really a sound. I don't know what "yacht rock" is supposed to mean either.

Paul on 60 Minutes Australia {June 25, 2017}

Bump. Weren't the Beatles great?

^ Always will be.

CBS News Philly (July 8, 2017)