New topic
PrintableThe Beatles are one of the most innovative and creative bands of our times. But, if Brothers and Sisters were running things, we'd all be on Stevie Wonder's jock right now.
That being said, I think Beatle-mania, today, then and in the future, is mostly a cultural phenomenon. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
i was thinking this morning about an earlier comment i made on this thread about how the beatles are one of the very few bands where every member was a frontman or a distinct personality in his own right, and that the only other band to have that kind of recognizability may have been duran duran...but then i realized KISS had that kind of thing going on, too...even though it was even more of a gimmick than the beatles had created for themselves...it still worked! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anx said: i was thinking this morning about an earlier comment i made on this thread about how the beatles are one of the very few bands where every member was a frontman or a distinct personality in his own right, and that the only other band to have that kind of recognizability may have been duran duran...but then i realized KISS had that kind of thing going on, too...even though it was even more of a gimmick than the beatles had created for themselves...it still worked!
I would nominate the who as a band where each member had their own distincy personality and stage presence, and in that case it was just about entirely genuine and not at all a matter of image or marketing [Edited 4/8/06 13:08pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Alasseon said: NDRU said: I completely get not liking legendary music. It's like learning a new language.
Bruce Springsteen--way too sincere for me. Too country or something. [Edited 4/7/06 15:22pm] 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. The Beatles, no matter how you look at them, are a classic band. Springsteen first made an impact on me watching live concert footage of him. I'm still not THAT into his albums, though he has a lot of great songs. But he's without a doubt one of the best live performers I've ever seen, and I've only seen him on TV. I imagine that actually being there could convert just about anyone. It's just amazing the energy & effort he still puts into his performances. You have to see a whole concert, though, not just one song on SNL or some other TV show. Live in Barcelona, Live in NYC, MTV(Un)Plugged, and the first one I saw, Amnesty International with Sting & Peter Gabriel are all great. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jacktheimprovident said: Anx said: i was thinking this morning about an earlier comment i made on this thread about how the beatles are one of the very few bands where every member was a frontman or a distinct personality in his own right, and that the only other band to have that kind of recognizability may have been duran duran...but then i realized KISS had that kind of thing going on, too...even though it was even more of a gimmick than the beatles had created for themselves...it still worked!
I would nominate the who as a band where each member had their own distincy personality and stage presence, and in that case it was just about entirely genuine and not at all a matter of image or marketing [Edited 4/8/06 13:08pm] i can see that, though i think after keith moon died, it kinda turned into the pete'n'roger show....which it's literally become now (of course, they don't have much choice in the matter these days). but yeah, i can see that. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jacktheimprovident said: Anx said: i was thinking this morning about an earlier comment i made on this thread about how the beatles are one of the very few bands where every member was a frontman or a distinct personality in his own right, and that the only other band to have that kind of recognizability may have been duran duran...but then i realized KISS had that kind of thing going on, too...even though it was even more of a gimmick than the beatles had created for themselves...it still worked!
I would nominate the who as a band where each member had their own distincy personality and stage presence, and in that case it was just about entirely genuine and not at all a matter of image or marketing Although a good point, almost 20 years ('63 to '81) is a long time for that agrument to hold up. After thinking about this for a bit, and only using the distinct personality within the band as the criteria, i'll offer a few more groups that (along with KISS and The Who) could fit that description also... Traffic Booker T. & The MGs Fleetwood Mac Led Zeppelin Blind Faith ZZ Top Cream (or The Cream depending on who's announcing them) U2 The Police Queen Yes The Band Emerson Lake & Palmer ...I also confined it to groups who, at least at some point, wrote their own material. tA  Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 "Ya see, we're not interested in what you know...but what you are willing to learn. C'mon y'all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
theAudience said: jacktheimprovident said: I would nominate the who as a band where each member had their own distincy personality and stage presence, and in that case it was just about entirely genuine and not at all a matter of image or marketing Although a good point, almost 20 years ('63 to '81) is a long time for that agrument to hold up. After thinking about this for a bit, and only using the distinct personality within the band as the criteria, i'll offer a few more groups that (along with KISS and The Who) could fit that description also... Traffic Booker T. & The MGs Fleetwood Mac Led Zeppelin Blind Faith ZZ Top Cream (or The Cream depending on who's announcing them) U2 The Police Queen Yes The Band Emerson Lake & Palmer ...I also confined it to groups who, at least at some point, wrote their own material. tA Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 I'd add the Monkees, though they may not qualify under your "writing their own material" rule I also mentioned the E Street band for having a lot of well known members. The Clash had 4 distinct personalities, if you were a fan. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
chuckaducci said: That being said, I think Beatle-mania, today, then and in the future, is mostly a cultural phenomenon. I can't imagine that "mania" could be caused by a pop band's music either! I love the Beatles, and I may have a slight obsession even, but I couldn't exactly call it mania. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: Alasseon said: 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. The Beatles, no matter how you look at them, are a classic band. Springsteen first made an impact on me watching live concert footage of him. I'm still not THAT into his albums, though he has a lot of great songs. But he's without a doubt one of the best live performers I've ever seen, and I've only seen him on TV. I imagine that actually being there could convert just about anyone. It's just amazing the energy & effort he still puts into his performances. You have to see a whole concert, though, not just one song on SNL or some other TV show. Live in Barcelona, Live in NYC, MTV(Un)Plugged, and the first one I saw, Amnesty International with Sting & Peter Gabriel are all great. That's what everyone says. I owe it to myself to see him live before I pass judgement. Thanks for confirming it.   
Some people tell me I've got great legs... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Alasseon said: NDRU said:
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. 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. I agree wholeheartedly with these statements. And I have to admit that I am a huge fan of the Beatles and believe that they are one of the greatest musical acts of all time, if not the greatest. Having said that though, while I love the Beatles for their music and their songwriting and innovation in musicianship, I'll never love them as passionately as I do Prince or Mariah or even U2. Am I really saying that Mariah and Bono deserve to be on the same pantheon of rock and roll ubergods as the Beatles? Hardly. But as NRDU said, the Beatles belong to my parents' generation. So do the Rolling Stones, the Supremes, Marvin Gaye, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, the Temptations, Bruce Springsteen and Stevie Wonder. As for the great disco, punk and New Wave acts (David Bowie, Sex Pistols, Donna Summer), they belong to my older silblings and younger uncles and aunts. Interestingly enough, I really love all of those artists, but I can't claim any personal emotional or spiritual connection to those artists because I was only a child when I first heard them, and the themes of their music don't really apply to my life experience. I think the statement of "the soundtrack of our lives" is apt in a lot of our musical tastes, and most of our preferences really are based on how they relate to us personally. Most of my parents' generation loved the Beatles because it was the first real crush they had on an artist, or it was the first time they got stoned while listening to Sgt. Pepper of the White Album, or how it reminded them of the heady days of Summer of Love. Most of the people on this board love Purple Rain or Sign O' The Times the same way our parents loved Abbey Road or Led Zeppelin's "Houses of the Holy." Likewise, Mariah Carey was hardly the first female vocalist who could sing in five octaves nor was she the only attractive female vocalist out there, but she connected with me on an emotional and spiritual level more than any other female artist. Many of my high school friends didn't even understand the early hip hop of Run DMC or Whodini and though that it was a fad that would go away. Likewise, I was totally into Nirvana when other people thought that it was just noise. Were these artists any better than the artists of my parents' generation? Some were; most were not; I may not have been able to say that they were better, but I could say that they were mine. Part of the controversy over whether the Beatles are the greatest band of all time has to do with the fact that my parents' generation is still very much in charge of the popular media and has a lot of influence in broadcasting their tastes over every nook and cranny of the earth. To most of them, everyone who came after the Beatles and the 1960's sucked. To their children though, anyone who wasn't on TRL or American Idol is an old has-been. For this generation, N'Sync is their Beatles, Britney Spears is their Madonna, and Kelly Clarkson is their version of Mariah Carey/Celine Dion/Pat Benatar. In all honesty, many of these younger artists are quite decent, but I won't love them as passionately because they don't belong to me; they belong to the kids today.   | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: The Clash had 4 distinct personalities, if you were a fan. gosh, in that case i'll throw in talking heads. after all, chris and tina had their own thing going with tom tom club, david byrne DEFINITELY had his own projects happening while the band was together, and jerry harrison was a member of jonathan richman and the modern lovers before he was in the heads, and now he's considered a respectable producer (as were chris and tina for a while after the band broke up). | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
728huey said: I think the statement of "the soundtrack of our lives" is apt in a lot of our musical tastes, and most of our preferences really are based on how they relate to us personally. Part of the controversy over whether the Beatles are the greatest band of all time has to do with the fact that my parents' generation is still very much in charge of the popular media and has a lot of influence in broadcasting their tastes over every nook and cranny of the earth. To most of them, everyone who came after the Beatles and the 1960's sucked. To their children though, anyone who wasn't on TRL or American Idol is an old has-been. For this generation, N'Sync is their Beatles, Britney Spears is their Madonna, and Kelly Clarkson is their version of Mariah Carey/Celine Dion/Pat Benatar. In all honesty, many of these younger artists are quite decent, but I won't love them as passionately because they don't belong to me; they belong to the kids today. I don’t mean to extend this thread’s natural life as I think we’ve all said our piece and it’s pretty much ready to go to thread heaven, but I’d like to respond to this. I appreciate the effort you put into composing that post, but I think you’re not correct in stating that people who did not experience the Beatles first hand do not have an ‘emotional’ connection to the band. A recorded piece of music, like any piece of art, can continue to have resonance as long as it exists. I really don’t think there’s any reason to believe a record’s emotional impact is dulled as years pass, and I strongly believe that the Beatles’ music has continued to connect with the generations that came well after their recording period. I have two rather unfalseifiable (if that’s a word) and therefore unscientific reasons for believing this: Reason #1) Their sales: the Beatles are the second highest selling act of the US in the soundscan (post 1990) era. Here are the top selling acts (list is from 2005). 1. 66,119 Garth Brooks 2. 51,202 The Beatles 3. 47,607 Metallica 4. 46,920 Celine Dion 5. 46,317 Mariah Carey 6. 35,504 George Strait 7. 32,727 Shania Twain 8. 31,729 Alan Jackson 9. 31,717 Kenny G 10. 31,516 Pink Floyd I don’t have any figures to back this up, so someone may come along and prove me completely wrong, but I’d expect the numbers would tell a somewhat similar tale for the UK and Europe. The only other acts from the Beatles era who were in the top 100 were the Stones (40) and Dylan (84), both of whom are still ongoing concerns, regularly releasing new recordings that contribute to their sales figures and touring. The Beatles sales are comprised solely original recordings distributed through the original albums and compilations and the releases of out-takes that made up the Anthology series. Also, in 2000 the Beatles were the top selling act in the world, due to the success of the ‘#1s” compilation. That strongly suggests that people from later generations are buying Beatles recordings in substantial quantities. It couldn’t just have been aging boomers who bought all those copies of the Anthology Series and #1s. 1 sold 600k copies in its first week of release in the US, and older record buyers are generally not the ones who rush into a store to buy an album. It’s younger buyers who do things like that – the Beatles original fans are nearly senior citizens. Reason #2) I regularly meet and hear of people, my age and younger, who love the Beatles. One of my clerks at work has a 13 year-old daughter who apparently listens to almost nothing but Rubber Soul and Revolver. When I was at a McCartney show in ‘93 a girl standing next to me, who couldn’t have been more than 16, cried openly when he played Here, There and Everywhere. Certainly I’m too young to have experienced them first time around. I discovered them after the fact along with millions of others; for myself, my gateway was some hand-me-down 45s and scratchy copies of the red and blue compilations that were kicking around my parent’s basement. Personally I’m as passionate about those recordings as anything was more contemporary to me. As for your notion that the Beatles' generation of fans controls the media, in turn leading to their prominence, I can only respond that markets do not drive consumer tastes. Markets follow consumer tastes. Certainly popular culture today caters to youth more than ever. The fact that the Beatles music still filters through to make an impact speaks to how deeply their songs continue to be felt. Bottom line: to me the Beatles represent the best in popular culture. They showed us that the biggest band can also be the most imaginative, the most ambitious and the smartest band, and that's why their popularity has been sustained to this day and will persist. They’re an inspiration for any artist who wants to defy mass expectations. OK, I’ve said my piece and hopefully I didn’t make to big of a mess of it. I do apologize for rambling on here. I guess I could have tried to be a little more concise and on-point, but screw it – there’s four hours left in the weekend, so I’m gonna go try to enjoy what’s left of it. [Edited 4/9/06 16:24pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
damosuzuki said: I don’t mean to extend this thread’s natural life as I think we’ve all said our piece and it’s pretty much ready to go to thread heaven, but I’d like to respond to this.
I appreciate the effort you put into composing that post, but I think you’re not correct in stating that people who did not experience the Beatles first hand do not have an ‘emotional’ connection to the band. A recorded piece of music, like any piece of art, can continue to have resonance as long as it exists. I really don’t think there’s any reason to believe a record’s emotional impact is dulled as years pass, and I strongly believe that the Beatles’ music has continued to connect with the generations that came well after their recording period. I have two rather unfalseifiable (if that’s a word) and therefore unscientific reasons for believing this: Reason #1) Their sales: the Beatles are the second highest selling act of the US in the soundscan (post 1990) era. Here are the top selling acts (list is from 2005). 1. 66,119 Garth Brooks 2. 51,202 The Beatles 3. 47,607 Metallica 4. 46,920 Celine Dion 5. 46,317 Mariah Carey 6. 35,504 George Strait 7. 32,727 Shania Twain 8. 31,729 Alan Jackson 9. 31,717 Kenny G 10. 31,516 Pink Floyd I don’t have any figures to back this up, so someone may come along and prove me completely wrong, but I’d expect the numbers would tell a somewhat similar tale for the UK and Europe. The only other acts from the Beatles era who were in the top 100 were the Stones (40) and Dylan (84), both of whom are still ongoing concerns, regularly releasing new recordings that contribute to their sales figures and touring. The Beatles sales are comprised solely original recordings distributed through the original albums and compilations and the releases of out-takes that made up the Anthology series. Also, in 2000 the Beatles were the top selling act in the world, due to the success of the ‘#1s” compilation. That strongly suggests that people from later generations are buying Beatles recordings in substantial quantities. It couldn’t just have been aging boomers who bought all those copies of the Anthology Series and #1s. 1 sold 600k copies in its first week of release in the US, and older record buyers are generally not the ones who rush into a store to buy an album. It’s younger buyers who do things like that – the Beatles original fans are nearly senior citizens. Reason #2) I regularly meet and hear of people, my age and younger, who love the Beatles. One of my clerks at work has a 13 year-old daughter who apparently listens to almost nothing but Rubber Soul and Revolver. When I was at a McCartney show in ‘93 a girl standing next to me, who couldn’t have been more than 16, cried openly when he played Here, There and Everywhere. Certainly I’m too young to have experienced them first time around. I discovered them after the fact along with millions of others; for myself, my gateway was some hand-me-down 45s and scratchy copies of the red and blue compilations that were kicking around my parent’s basement. Personally I’m as passionate about those recordings as anything was more contemporary to me. As for your notion that the Beatles' generation of fans controls the media, in turn leading to their prominence, I can only respond that markets do not drive consumer tastes. Markets follow consumer tastes. Certainly popular culture today caters to youth more than ever. The fact that the Beatles music still filters through to make an impact speaks to how deeply their songs continue to be felt. Bottom line: to me the Beatles represent the best in popular culture. They showed us that the biggest band can also be the most imaginative, the most ambitious and the smartest band, and that's why their popularity has been sustained to this day and will persist. They’re an inspiration for any artist who wants to defy mass expectations. OK, I’ve said my piece and hopefully I didn’t make to big of a mess of it. I do apologize for rambling on here. I guess I could have tried to be a little more concise and on-point, but screw it – there’s four hours left in the weekend, so I’m gonna go try to enjoy what’s left of it. I appreciate your response to my thread. As I mentioned earlier, I love the Beatles. I also love the great Motown artists (Marvin Gaye, the Supremes, the Temptations, Stevie Wonder, et al), Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, and other great artists which came before my formative adolescent years. I love them mainly because they put out some incredibly awesome music. I never intended to say that these artists were not imaginative or innovative; one of the hallmarks of a great band is their ability to put out timeless music. The Beatles are by far the greatest rock and roll musical act in that sense. Having said that, what I was trying to say was that there are certain musical acts that one may naturally gravitiate to because they represent a moment in your life, and it is this connection which binds you emotionally and spiritually to that artist. As I said before, it dosen't make it right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse; it only makes it your own. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anx said: NDRU said: The Clash had 4 distinct personalities, if you were a fan. gosh, in that case i'll throw in talking heads. after all, chris and tina had their own thing going with tom tom club, david byrne DEFINITELY had his own projects happening while the band was together, and jerry harrison was a member of jonathan richman and the modern lovers before he was in the heads, and now he's considered a respectable producer (as were chris and tina for a while after the band broke up). Yep. But it seems if you're into a band, you tend to know all the players. It always cracks me up to listen to someone talk about a band that I don't know very well and they're saying stuff like "Ken Forte is the baddest guitar player ever, and Monty LaLonde brings that fire, and Gary Pendit just holds it all together..." Who?! My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |