jjhunsecker said:

I agree. I was using Funk as one example.

What I think is that some other musicians are as important as The Beatles.

Just to name one, Antonio Carlos Jobim in Brazil. But also the movement of "La Nueva Trova" in Cuba.

And if you see the Anglo-Saxon-White popular music, there are a lot of albums at the same level of quality of the Beatles material and sometimes more "avant garde".

"Pet Sounds" by The Beach Boys, is as important as Sargent Pepper's.
"Are You Experienced?" by The J.H Experiece and "The Velvet Underground and Nico" are the kind of rock albums that the Beatles would never record.
"Exile in Main Street" by the Rolling Stone, is the band sound that the Beatles would never reach. The Beatles were to much about "personality" sometimes.

So the phoney beatlemania consist in give to The Beatles an exagerated central rol in the development of popular music.

bublebath said:

good point about "pet sounds" - in fact, paul has gone on record as saying that album and brian wilson's "smile" was a blueprint for "sgt. pepper".

as for jimi, you're aware that he covered "sgt. pepper's lonely hearts club band" in concert, right? and you're also aware that the british mod sound was a big influence on jimi's early music, right? k, just checkin'.

and as much as the beatles got into blues-based rock at times, i don't think they and the stones should be compared. the two bands had two very different approaches.

because the beatles along with the funk brothers at Motown and bob dylan are the fathers of most modern popular music from 1950's right up til today.

no one has to prefer their music one way or another, but make no mistake they were/are great.

Moonbeam said:

but is that a reason to take the extreme stance in the opposite direction, just to make a point about the foolishness of absolutes? if you were to open your mind to their music without an ounce of consideration for what the rest of the world thought of them, you may still wind up hating them...or you might really like them...or you might like a handful of their songs...but at least the net result would be YOURS, rather than a reaction to what you think the rest of the world wants you to think. it would be more of an honest appraisal. i don't care what you think about the rest of the world's opinions. i care about what YOU think.

i can kind of relate to your frame of mind about the beatles...for years, i hated anything associated with pink floyd, because i thought they were the universal patron saints of overwrought stoners. "oh, they're so deep, they understand what i'm going through, they feel my pain." oh, SHUT UP.

but then some friends played some really OLD pink floyd for me, and it was okay. not something that i loved, but it was enjoyable. bowie does some pink floyd covers on "pin-ups", and i like those songs. i still don't own any floyd albums, but at least i got rid of the stigma, and i think my ability to appreciate modern music is just a little better off for it.

what other people think, or even what they want you to think, about any particular thing is no substitute for forming your own thoughts and opinions about something. and believe it or not, every once in a while there's no harm in liking something that the masses like too. but you didn't hear that from me.

Anx said:

You're absolutely right. But this thread seems more geared toward the conversion angle (at least when my name was brought up ) than the personal opinion angle. I've outlined my reasons for not liking the Beatles before, but this doesn't seem to be the appropriate place for that.

I will admit that my stance on The Beatles in public forums is often (or perhaps usually) a reaction, but my opinions about their music are due to my own taste. I'm not one to claim that my taste is a valid barometer for anyone except myself, and I certainly don't think that my dislike of The Beatles music either qualifies me or disqualifies me for any "status" as some beacon of good or bad taste.

Again, I'm happy for those who get something out of their music. The fact that so many do speaks volumes about their impact.

Anx said:

Among my top 10 favorite artists:

Prince
Madonna
Janet Jackson
Blondie
David Bowie
Eurythmics
Kylie Minogue

I think that pretty much disqualifies me for any obscurity trophy.

And Roxette is in the top 20.

Anx said:

Hendrix also covered All along the Watchtower but that doesn´t implies that that there is no Hendrix without Dylan. I believe that Hendrix is that original that you cant explain him after someone else.

By the way, regarding Dylan I forgot to mention "Highway 61" and "Blonde on Blonde"--albums that were very influential to The Beatles music.

bublebath said:

You're right that Jimi was gonna be Jimi no matter what. But if you respect him, doesn't it mean something that he covered Sgt. Pepper about a week after the album came out?

Or if you respect George Benson, doesn't it mean something that he covered the entire Abbey Road album months after the original came out?

Or if you respect Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, Frank Sinatra, Michael Jackson, Prince or any number of great artists, that they chose to sing Beatles music?

Likewise, you say the Beatles were influenced by Dylan. That went a long way to getting me to listen to Dylan, when I didn't like what I heard initially. But damn if they weren't right! I love Dylan now.

I have plenty of opinions of music, but I also trust the true experts. The geniuses that make the music and what they listen to.

NDRU said:

my point exactly.

here's a reason


any questions?

NDRU said:

Covering the work of others was far more SOP in the 60s early 70s than today...it's just how the music industry worked then...so, while you have something a of a point, let's not get carried away and keep in mind the context. Everybody "covered" everybody - that's not far from the truth for that era.

The Beatles were not particularly good musicians or vocalists. Unlike other British rock acts who were their peers. The Who and of course Led Zeppelin both had drummers who defined rock and roll drumming. They also had two rather fair lead guitar players - Pete Townsend and Jimmy Page. You like these bands or not, these cats were SO FUCKING GOOD. I don't see how an argument can be made that the Beatles were anything more than fair musicians. So, again, please tell me in light of this why they are so important?

And again, as I've gotten only brief reply, how the Beatles contributed to the spread of DJ culture all over the world? With the rise of disco, hip-hop, house, techno, etc etc this is the main way in which music has evolved in the last 30 years. We ALL KNOW what James' contribution here was...I remain unsure of what role, if any, the Beatles played in this evolution.

It seems to me the crux of these Beatles lovers argument for their band's greatness can only be boiled down to one thing...

Lennon and McCartney's songwriting.

Being an outstanding songwriting team whose work stands the test of time is a mighty accomplishment. Even though I mostly dislike their work, I can understand and give props for that, to a point.

But it does not earn one the status of Greek Gods of Rock & Roll, the central cultural figures of the post-War era.

No way.

And our whole media-dominated society is ALWAYS trying to shove the Beatles up everyones ass as EXACTLY THAT.

THIS is my problem with the Beatles music, and in particular their fans.

darkstranger521 said:

very well said.

darkstranger521 said:

Okay. And you're right, as musicians they weren't individually great. That's part of the magic of "the Beatles" was the chemistry. Somehow these average musicians (John & Paul were great singers, though in my opinion) just clicked. They played together tight, they wrote together well, they harmonized together, they balanced each other. And they didn't just write songs, they created new sounds on record.

That's why people say "the Beatles were geniuses," even though Ringo definitely wasn't & John may have been the only genius among them.

Yeah the Who were great musicians, but not all of their finished product is as great to me. That's just my opinion, of course. But plenty of great musicians form supergroups that don't make great albums.

And maybe the Beatles didn't influence DJ culture. They didn't influence hip hop, true (other than a handful--obviously the Beastie Boys). I don't think James Brown influenced country music much either. Nobody can do it all.

NDRU said:

Yes but who the hell cares about country music? .....just kidding....sort of.

Why should I think The Stones are really great?

Graycap23 said:

I'm not a big fan either, but it is very popular.

NDRU said:

There are a lot of hicks in the US. That's a fact.

NDRU said:

I feel very safe in saying that country music has devolved steeply in the last 10-20 years. What you have in country music today is what my father likes to call "hat acts"...people whose main talent is looking good in a hat...and that's about it.

NDRU said:

In regards to their musicianship, I think the Beatles are highly underrated. Paul McCartney is a very skilled multi-instrumentalist (and I'd put paul in the same league as Jack Bruce and John Entwhistle in terms of melodic, inventive bass playing) , ringo's drumming is often understated but it always supported the music and I think he had chops that people don't give him credit for, and george is very underrated in terms of his expressivity on guitar, especially slide guitar (which admittedly he didn't play very much with the Beatles), oh and he played sitar reasonably well which is one of the hardest instruments to learn.

bublebath said:

Go buy The Beatles' White Album and you will. Honest.

TonyVanDam said:

i have the vinyl and never played it. I'll check it out.

darkstranger521 said:

Co-sign.

Actually, I do like The Beatles, especially Abbey Road. However, I doubt that they are/should be the center of the canon of global popular music. I would like to see more heterogenity there.

dammme said:

i'm pretty sure all the beatles were straight!

Graycap23 said:

True, but I don't think it's too fair to put the millions of fans of any kind of music, including country & hip hop, into one group.
[Edited 4/7/06 13:35pm]

NDRU said:

there's some country music i like. i wouldn't consider myself a "hick". in fact, i'm the kind of person hicks like to beat up!

I completely get not liking legendary music. It's like learning a new language.

The Beatles are from another generation (old), kind of soft compared to other rock, despite having "Beat" right in their name, they're not funky, they don't dance, and they're not virtuosos on their instruments. But they're my favorites.

Here's my initial (uninformed) opinions on some of my (now) favorite musical legends:

Robert Johnson--my concept of blues was BB King & Stevie Ray Vaughn. This sounded simple, there were no solos, no drums, and all the songs sounded the same.

Miles Davis--my concept of jazz was George Benson & David Sanborn. I heard So What and thought "So what?" Bitches Brew was no better. It sounded like an orchestra tuning up.

Mozart--sounds like Beethoven, sounds like Bach, I prefer Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Dylan--Just plain can't sing

The Velvet Underground--ditto

Tom Waits--ditto

Led Zeppelin--I hate heavy metal, it's all worthless

Nirvana--Ditto

P-Funk--funky, but nothing really happens in these songs.

Bruce Springsteen--way too sincere for me. Too country or something.

All of these took some work for me to get into. But I'm glad I did. I get kind of obsessed if I don't like someone who's highly acclaimed. I won't stop until I at least understand why people like them.

There's still plenty I don't love--Cold Play, Oasis, Biggie, Madonna (from a musical standpoint) though.
[Edited 4/7/06 15:22pm]

NDRU said:

I have NEVER thought about that but U are right. That's funny.

Graycap23 said:

Yeah, I was right in a way, but I wasn't exactly right, either
[Edited 4/7/06 15:52pm]

NDRU said:

Wow. It's funny because that's kinda what I was making a joke about before. Some things require your musical tastes to change, evolve, and mature. Music isn't just what you hear, but a bunch of other things. Someone listening to "When Doves Cry" today may or may not care, but back in 1984 it signalled something new.

The Beatles may sound dated or simple or just plain boring to someone who is 17 years old today. But you cannot deny their influence and continued impact on the music scene.

To this day, I can't get into Bruce Springsteen. I know the impact he's had. I like what I know of the man personally; he seems like a good guy. I respect his contributions to music and the integrity he puts forth in his shows. I just can't listen to many of the songs. My brain just glazes over. It's just not my thing, but to some, Bruce is God.

Some people will always think music begins and ends with pop; Nsync and the BackStreet Boys will be their heroes, and there isn't anything wrong with that. That kind of music has its place.

But as you grow older your tastes change. The music scene changes too and sometimes people come up with something really interesting that in ten years time will either sound dated or will be considereed a classic.

The Beatles, no matter how you look at them, are a classic band.