Look guys I'm not saying the beatles were crappy musicians. Far from it. I think they were talented, you can't maintain consistently favorable criticism for 40 years without being so. I like the beatles. I'm like the only young "hip-hop"-ish teenage black-latin dude I know that likes I am the walrus! When I first heard straberry fields forever I couldn't get it out of my head. I like their music.

What I disagree with is those people who say that their music is comparable to classical composers and jazz musicians. IMO I just don't see it. Yes they gave musical credibility to what was once anonsensical music genre, adding sublime chord changes and progressions as well as melody, harmony, etc. Looking at it as a whole, not just as pop musicians, not just as rock musicians but as western music composers/musicians what exactly did they do that merits them being up there with a Mozart or a Beethoven? Hell what makes them comparable musically to A James BRown or a Ray Charles? And I mean composition wise and playing-wise. NOt just integrating new sounds, shit people before them were doing that and people after them will continue to do that. And I don't count studio experimentation as their legacy either, just because they were the first to use newly acquired sound techniques invented by geoff emerick and ken townshend. I've never seen anyone explain to me their contributions to western music. Pop music, yeah sure, first guys you heard on the radio to genre jump, first superstars, yeh yeh I get THAT. But I don't get what makes them Innovators in western music. THAT'S MY BIGGEST BEEF WITH THE BEATLES OVERRATING. That's what I want to know.

Sandino said:

Who ever said that they compared to Mozart and Beethoven?

James Brown and Ray Charles are great... I've never seen anyone compare the Beatles to either of them.

In short: What are you talking about?

ufoclub said:

I said the 80's the beatles were a quater as popular as they are now. Where did I mention 60's and 70's? I know what they have done and their influence. I grew up on their music. The point I was making was the beatles were not always seen as the mega Gods they are now. They were still seen as uber popular in the 80's, but not like they are now I feel...

..look at the catlogue that MJ bought again.He bought it for around $43 million in the mid 80's. (if Iam wrong, let me know as Iam not exactly sure), and now thats worth at least 4 times as much! It's worth must of gone up in value for some reason? Or should I say, why was it worth so much less in the 80's? Nobody thought it was worth what MJ paid for it, not even Paul and Yoko. The fact its worth so much more now probably has something to do with they are alot more popular now (or sell more records now) then in the 80's. Thats the only point Iam making.

DiminutiveRocker said:

What's with this Mozart/Beethoven business? Those guys were geniuses in a different genre. The Beatles were pop/rock. Why would anyone even give that comparison? And for WHAT?!

DiminutiveRocker said:

You know Prince is compared to Mozart...

Ray Charles did some cool cover songs of The Beatles and their members (not there peni)

"Imagine," from the John Lennon album "Imagine", was covered on the Ray Charles album "Strong Love Affair."

"Eleanor Rigby," from the The Beatles album "Revolver", was covered on the Ray Charles album "Genius & Soul: The 50th Anniversary Collection (disc 5)."

"Yesterday," from the The Beatles album "1962-1970", was covered on the Ray Charles album "Ultimate Hits Collection (disc 1)."

JAMES BROWN:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...u0OwmlNfF4

ufoclub said:

PLease stop deflecting and just answer the question.

Sandino said:

How is pointing to direct artistic correlation/inerteraction/overlapping in any way deflecting?

ufoclub said:

thesexofit said:

That's just utterly and completely incorrect. The Beatles were enormously popular in the 80s, as they have been every decade since they formed. When John Lennon died in 1980, it launched a huge wave of Beatles love and nostalgia. Both Paul McCartney and George Harrison had major hits in the 80s. The Beatles even scored 2 Top 40 hits with old recordings in the 80's (The Beatles Movie Medly, and "Twist and Shout" thanks to its inclusion in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off").

When the first batch of Beatles CDs were issued in 1987, it was a HUGE deal. It was the biggest CD launch in history at the time - - the clamor for the release of the Beatles albums on CD had been huge, and there was huge buzz and excitement when they were released.

EMI had planned on capitalizing on the Beatles popularity in the mid-80's with a collection of outtakes called "Sessions" that was ultimately cancelled when the surviving Beatles complained (the outtakes ended up on the enormously successful Beatles Anthology Series which came out in the 90s'.... all of which were massively successful).

The Beatles were inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame in 1988, and there was mass hoopla and celebration of them around that time, as well.

The Beatles were huge in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s - - - and will continue to be huge as long as any of us are alive. That is simple fact, like their music or not.

NoVideo said:

This is the absolute truth.

Plus to tell you the truth, I think more kids bought Beatles Albums in the 80's then the 90's ( I bought all the records used from shops by 1988). Slowly (and naturally) their sales diminish every decade (counting for inflation it's about how many people buy, not how much $$$). Certainly there are boost with every new compilation or re-issue. The upcoming remasters will be a nother burst of sales.

One interesting note: The Beatles were the biggest selling rock band in America over the last decade (and that number is sure to rise considerably with the upcoming remasters.

Not bad for a band that broke up nearly 40 years ago.


* * * *

The biggest sellers in the US since 2000 are listed below, including mention of the album that sold best during the period. The figures come from Nielsen/SoundScan and are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand records sold.

1. Eminem (31.1 million) – The Marshall Mathers LP (10.1 million)
2. The Beatles (27.6 million) – 1 (11.4 million)
3. Tim McGraw (24.3 million) – Greatest Hits (6 million)
4. Toby Keith (24.2 million) – Shock’n Y’All (4.4 million)
5. Britney Spears (23 million) – Oops!...I Did It Again (9.2 million)
6. Kenny Chesney (21.4 million) – When the Sun Goes Down (4.1 million)
7. Nelly (21.2 million) – Country Grammar (8.5 million)
8. Linkin Park (21.1 million) – Hybrid Theory (9.6 million)
9. Creed (20.4 million) – Human Clay (9.5 million)
10. Jay-Z (19.4 million) – The Black Album (3.3 million)
11. Nickelback (19.2 million) – All the Right Reasons (7.2 million)
12. Josh Groban (19.1 million) – Closer (5.7 million)
13. Rascal Flatts (18.9 million) – Feels Like Today (5.1 million)
14. Metallica (18.5 million) – Metallica (3.7 million)
15. Alan Jackson (18.5 million) – Drive (3.5 million)
16. NSYNC (18.4 million) – No Strings Attached (11.1 million)
17. Dixie Chicks (18.3 million) – Home (6 million)
18. Johnny Cash (17.9 million) – 16 Greatest Hits (2.8 million)
19. Kid Rock (17.6 million) – Cocky (5 million)
20. Celine Dion (17.6 million) – All the Way…A Decade of Song (5 million)

http://www.justpressplay....world.html

Wow.....that list above is WEAK.

The reluctance of this thread to die, proves the weight the Beatles hold in music history, a band together for only 8 years, almost 50 years ago.

They were SPECTACULAR.

Graycap23 said:

it is absolutely terrifying! Who the f&^% is buying Kid Rock albums?!

NDRU said:

The label.

Timmy84 said:

Seriously, someone wants him to stay around, and only they know why.

NDRU said:

And whatever that is remains a mystery to this day...

NoVideo said:

That list is an indictment of the American listening public. The amount of great music that has come out in the last decade, and THAT is what people decide to buy?! Good god.

If I set out to make a list of the most uninspiring, mediocre & derivative music I could think of, I doubt my list would be as inclusive as that one.

Truly gobsmacking.

TyphoonTip said:

For the most part I wholeheartedly agree with you but I do think that it is interesting that a man as old as Johnny Cash made the list. I think he turned 68 in the year 2000 and was 71 when he died in 2003.

ufoclub said:

Exactly.

Also, I think the list speaks for itself.

NoVideo said:

Ok fair enough you win LOL. I was just giving my personal view. Iam not looking up sales stats but just going by word on the street as a kid.

And I never said they wern't big sellers in the 80's, but compared to now, I think the beatles are alot bigger this past decade then in the 80's. More sales, more recognition etc in general...

I just got the feeling growing up, that they were seen as abit old hat. This is my perspective as a kid in the UK in the early 90's before the "anthology" blew up.

NoVideo said:

The Beatles are the only amazing artists on that list.That says alot about today's music,doesn't it?

SoulAlive said:

I think they belong with the others.

The Beatles WERE overrated!

They stole everything they knew from the REAL best band in Liverpool:

rocknrolldave said:

I was young... I needed the money
[Edited 7/14/09 4:08am]

SoulAlive said:

I can't say that I am a big fan but I think you are selling Johnny Cash a bit short. Even if you do not appreciate his music I think you have to recognise that he was a big influence not just to country artists but also to a lot of rock artists. You could make an argument that Johnny Cash is as big to country music as The Beatles are to rock music.
[Edited 7/14/09 4:36am]

rialb said:

I never really got into his music,but I do respect his talent

I like the fact that this thread refuses to die It just proves how relevent the Beatles remain.They broke up 40 years ago and we're still discussing them,lol.