darkstranger521 said:

Oh yes they can!!



Yes! Let's make it a race issue why don't we?
[Edited 4/6/06 6:44am]

MartyMcFly said:

Are u saying race plays no part in this? How convenient.

Graycap23 said:

most "classic" white rock stars would be the first to cite black R&B/blues musicians as their most important influences, so race does play a role. race-ISM? i think that's more about the industry than the artists.

Graycap23 said:

Puhhlease...

Anx said:

Well said. I find that most artists are above a lot of that kind of bullshit. They like who they like regardless or race and will cite these influences proudly.

guitarslinger44 said:

Very true.

bublebath said:

There's nothing to get. The Beatles are boring. BORING! They get so much adoration because they are pioneers of pop-rock. However, being "one of the first" does not make you the best or even "really great." It just makes you "one of the first."

Every god damn thing on this site always comes back to race. Why can't we just have a conversation about the Beatles and their huge contribution to music? Why does race always have to play a part?

If you want to talk about the greatness of James or Marvin or any other influential black artist, go ahead and do so, but leave the race game out of it for a change.

kisscamille said:

While I would really LOVE to agree with you, EVERYTHING in this country seems to contain an unconsious level of race and gender. You can choose to ignore it, but it's still there, even if you choose NOT to acknowledge "it". Sorry.

Graycap23 said:

well, you can be aware of it, or you can be a participant in it.

Graycap23 said:

You don't have to be sorry. We're all entitled to our own beliefs. I just find that this site is no longer a place to talk about Prince or other artists, it's now a place to argue about race relations. I'm not saying that race relations are not important, they are, but when we can't even have a simple conversation without bringing race into it, that's when I get sick of it all.

Graycap23 said:

Agree

SquirrelMeat said:

But I love my avatar

Stax said:

Not Kind of Blues? Not be-bop?

Anx said:

I just listening to one song by Ray Charles, "What I said" or something, and that drummer is really GREAT. Of course, if he "has not personality" is because:
1.He is a black man. OR: 2.There is a lot of errors in how we tell the history or rock.

JPW said:

Not True, I love Monty and the boys but the Beatles are way OVERRATED. I do like them but please there are a lot of groups from their time that would run rings around them.

jacktheimprovident said:

I might throw Beethoven in there, but even without him those three are covering a lot of ground.

bublebath said:

well, what i meant was this - all the members of the beatles were frontmen in their own right. i don't know how many bands AFTER the beatles were able to do this. it's a formula for boybands, but boybands aren't instrumentalists/songwriters. they're just performers.

it doesn't have anything to do with race or the way we tell history - it's just the way the beatles were marketed, and it was a brilliant gimmick.

Anx said:

It was a very new thing. And Ringo was actually just as popular as John & Paul! They each had personality, but it came naturally. It wasn't like the Spice Girls or the Village People, where they said, let's get a cute one, a quiet one, a deep one, and a comic relief.

NDRU said:

exactly. i don't think a band of musicans have been able to carry that kind of group persona since the beatles. maybe duran duran?

Anx said:

Duran Duran was at least a real band, and you're right, each had his own prescence. I also believe it was fairly organic, even though Duran Duran & the Beatles were heavily "packaged." But the concept worked so well for the Beatles that bands became contrived in this way, like the Village People are an extreme example!

The Beatles are responsible for a lot of bad trends, too!

NDRU said:

yeah, the personality thing was "packaged", but the only reason i think duran duran is worthy of comparison is because they also branched off and did solo projects like arcadia and power station. they didn't just coast on being pretty - they also exploited their musical talents in directions other than their core band, and fans and non-fans alike seemed to be aware of them.

Anx said:

sorry, but that´s bullshit!

Anx said:

I think it's a worthy comparison, too, because their individual personalities were based on roles that they played in the band, not image types like "Andy's the rocker...John has soul, etc."

Decent bands are able to do that, where they can split up and still have success

The Rolling Stones--Mick & Keith have had some success as solo artists.
The E Street Band--Clarence, Little Steven, Patti, & Max all have careers.
New Edition--Bell Biv Devoe, Bobby Brown, Johnny Gill, Ralph, all had success.

I'm sure there's plenty of others.

urbanfox3105 said:

you planning on enlightening us on why it's bullshit, or does your vatican city zip code just make this post a general declaration in itself?

Anx said:

I think it´s nonsens, cuz you just can´t compare the Beatles to Duran Duran. WTF? only cause the are english??

urbanfox3105 said:

i'm not comparing their talent or their legacy. i'm comparing both bands' ability to create personas for each member of the band and spotlight each member's talent. duran duran and the beatles are the only two bands i can think of who have been able to do that. no, i'm not saying duran duran is as good of a band as the beatles, or even that they're a worse band. that wasn't my point.

The Beatles are widely acknowledged by music critics, musicians and fans to be the greatest band in rock history. Look at any list of the "greatest" albums of all time, and you will see the Beatles featured prominently in the Top 10 - usually with several Top 10 albums listed. Not only that, they were peerlessly successful commercially. Nobody has been able to touch their sales. They are iconic for a reason - they are the best, on a level on their own, that nobody else can even begin to touch. Period.

That's my opinion, true. But it's also the opinion of most music critics and musicians. Vh1, MTV, Rolling Stone, etc... and endless array of publications have done polls, surveys, etc. of critics and, more importantly, MUSICIANS, and the Beatles are always #1.

Several of their albums are among the hallmarks of rock history: "Revolver" and "Sgt. Peppers" are both routinely cited as the greatest album of all time; "Rubber Soul", "The White Album" and "Abbey Road" are similarly revered.

Their songs have been covered - far and away - more than any other artist. People are still doing Beatles songs to this day.

Not only are they renowned for their innovative and earthshattering music, they were a cultural phenomenon. Nothing has approached "Beatlemania", and the waves of imitators that were spawned in their wake. The Beatles changed EVERYTHING about popular music, and the music industry as a whole.

The Beatles have spawned more books, articles, writings, analysis, films, etc, BY FAR than any other artist. They were not only brilliant artistically, but they were fascinating personally. The story behind the music makes the music all that much more enthralling.


Extraordinary songwriters without peer in pop music.... everything that came after them was touched by the Beatles. The Rolling Stones tried in desparation to keep up (they attempted a laughibly excruciating psychadelic album in the wake of Sgt. Peppers.) The Beach Boys strived to match them. Dylan was well aware of their powers. Hendrix... Joni Mitchell.... Prince. Bowie. All the greats acknowledged the Beatles.

They are forever on another plane in pop/rock music. The only discussion that needs to take place is this: Who is #2?

NorthernLad said:

And therein lies the problem. This is a perfect showcase of the notion that they are overrated. Musical taste has become such a barometer for personality that people are afraid to not hail them as the greatest, let alone admit to the heresy of not liking them. I find it hard to believe that a majority of people really believe that The Beatles are the greatest artist of the rock era. Perhaps a plurality, but their I think their acclaim is inflated by those without strong enough opinions to opt for something other than the easiest choice.

Moonbeam said:

While I do like the Beatles NOT a single song has ever touched me in any way that counts. Not one. I just don't get it either.