Graycap23 said:

Graycap23 said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

Hey, even George Clinton expressed his admiration for the Fab Four.

U want 2 kill your career? Publicly start slamming other artists.

Especially Icons.

is that why publicists often get artists to slag off other artists and make fights to get stories in the papers for free publicity? so they will kill their career and the publicist won't have to work with them again? no-one is going to stop listening to or buying music from an artist because they said something about another artist they disagreed with

namepeace said:

unique said:

if i said my favourite colour was purple, how could you disagree with that?

I see the prose you've written is focused on my use of the word "agree." IF you say, "my favorite color is purple," that's a preference. If you're talking about a shade of purple you SEE in any given image, that's a perception.

There is a difference between stating a preference for subject matter and a perception about subject matter. It may not possible for me to agree on your preference, though I may be able to say whether my preference is the same. But as to a perception regarding the same subject matter, there may be disagreement in whole, or in part.

If you say you prefer the Beatles, that's a preference. If you say you hear the Beatles influence in today's music, that's a perception. You said the latter, not the former.

Got it now?

i never said, or suggested that their influence now is bigger or smaller than it was at any other point in time. i simply stated styles of music incluenced by them, and that the influence can still be heard now, and asked specifically what part of what i said does someone not agree with. is there any of the named styles of music that you think was not influenced by the beatles, or do you disagree that i hear the beatles influence in 2015?

Re-read my 2nd response. You gave your perception regarding the Beatles' influence today. My perception aligned with yours, to an extent. I simply simply said the influence is not as pronounced in music in 2015 as it was in 1985 or 1990. You did see that, right? Maybe not, given your inscrutable focus on the word "agree" (see above).

some could say the beatles influence is stronger today than it was at any other point in time, as their influence was so great that people influenced by the beatles have made music to which others have been influenced by, and perhaps others who have been influenced by that music, so we are generations deep into the influence of the beatles. the basic chord structures and styles are still being used by all types of artists today. kraftwerk on the other hand won't have anything like the same amount of influence on classical or jazz music, or on lyricists

And some could say the influence is there, just not as pronounced, insofar as it passes on to 21st century artists through prior acts from the 70's, 80's and 90's whom the Beatles who nevertheless had their distinct sounds of their own. And would not both sides agree on the premise that the Beatles' influence endures today?

And again you mention Kraftwerk when my initial post did not. Why keep bringing them into this discussion?

i'm not going to go over each point as your post is a mess to read, but if you read the OP you would see them suggesting initially kraftwerk was more influential than the beatles. i'm not going to read any of your posts again. if you want people to read your posts and answer back, try figuring out how to answwer a post without inserting your text amonst someone elses and/or using the multi quote boxes

unique said:

Graycap23 said:

U want 2 kill your career? Publicly start slamming other artists.

Especially Icons.

is that why publicists often get artists to slag off other artists and make fights to get stories in the papers for free publicity? so they will kill their career and the publicist won't have to work with them again? no-one is going to stop listening to or buying music from an artist because they said something about another artist they disagreed with

Ask TTD what happened 2 his career after his Beatles comment.

Graycap23 said:

Ask TTD what happened 2 his career after his Beatles comment.

Nothing, he's said that either Michael Jackson sabotaged his career or that when Sony bought out CBS Records, most of the staff that signed him were fired and the new people did not give him the same attention. George Michael also had problems with Sony around the same time, and later Mike himself had problems with Sony.

[Edited 2/14/15 8:38am]

ok, gonna do an expanded list

Beatles

Rolling Stones

Cream

Led Zeppelin

Black Sabbath

Elton John

David Bowie

Kraftwerk

Judas Priest

Duran Duran

Depeche Mode

The Smiths

[Edited 2/14/15 9:03am]

Graycap23 said:

In my opinion it was and still is Kraftwerk. Most folks choose the Beatles and I still don't understand that answer. Outside of a handful of 1960's groups who copied the Beatles, their influence was more hype than reality.

[Edited 2/11/15 13:49pm]

This is the most fucking ridiculous post I've ever read at the Org. The Beatles have been the
most important pop cultural phenomenon in the past 100 years. The reason why you don't
understand the reach of their influence is because it has pervaded and been firmly entrenched
in all pop cultural aspects since the 1960. Ironically, the influence of the Beatles is so ubiquitous
that it's hardly noticed by young whippersnappers or those who seek to deny the obvious:

Reason 1

Reason 2

Reason 3

Reason 4

I understand how young people can be dismissive of the impact the Beatles (still) caused, but
when you listen to Prince's music, it is obvious that he's a melodicist in the mold of Paul McCart-
ney and like all recording artists who make albums as one cohesive artistic statement, indebted
to the Beatles as they were the first band who approached album making as such.

namepeace said:

unique said:

I agree with some of that. I think there was a time when the Beatles influence was more pronounced, though. I heard comparisons to the Beatles/Beatles influences in a lot of 80s albums, including Around The World In A Day, Three Feet High and Rising, Let Love Rule. Scores of artists have tried to emulate the Sgt. Pepper concept.

But the Beatles influences sound fainter in the recent decades.

I honestly couldn't pick one. The Stones, The Who, Zeppelin, and some others could lay claim to that title as well.

Not you too!.....

NP, you couldn't pick one? C'mon, mate! Yes, the Beatles' musical influence may not be
as explicit as it once was on AM/FM pop radio contexts, but this is not the only component of
Beatle-mania that exists today.

So, if you listen to pop radio today, you will not hear musical echoes of the Beatles like you did
back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s growing ever so faint during the 90s. This is to be expected. In-
stead, what you see is that their approach to making albums is still the way recording artists
make art: the album is to be experienced as a whole and the sum of its parts. This is a direct
result of how the Beatles made their albums starting with Help! (kinda) and Rubber Soul
(definitely) all the way to as you point out with Sgt. Peppers (the standard, benchmark, principle).

The Stones' best album, Exile On Main Street is owed, in concept, to the Beatles; they even made
the overt attempt to rip off Sgt. Peppers with Their Satanic Majestic Request! The Who did their
Sgt. Peppers imitation with The Who Sell Out; and their respective concept albums are owed to
the Beatles - all of them. Any concept album written in a pop context owes its entire conceptual
existence to the Beatles - all of them - from Purple Rain to OK Computer. Any album written in a
pop context that purports itself as a collection of songs meant to be experienced as one artistic
statement tied together thematically owes its entire existence to the Beatles. So, like you said,
there have been tons of recording artists doing what the Beatles did first.

The Beatles were the first pop band to popularize and utilize effectively short music film perfor-
mances, viz. music videos. The Beatles were the first pop band to sell out not theatres, or amphi-
theatres or concert halls but stadiums. The Beatles were the first pop band to make the attempt
to form their own in-house record company (Apple Records). The Beatles were the first pop band
to have a live global satellite television broadcast. The Beatles were the first pop band to print
their lyrics on the album (another ubiquitous Beatle component totally lost on the consuming
public who take it for granted).

With "Yesterday" being the most covered pop song of all time, this is an indication of how influential
the Beatles were and are. I am tickled that this forum doesn't grasp just how integral the
Beatles are in our album listening experience.

SuperSoulFighter said:

I agree with a lot of what you said, but the concept of Exile on Main St. did not come from the Beatles; it was more of a result from being holed up in tax exile in a French Riviera mansion and truckloads of drugs. Yes, Satanic Majesties had the Stones a bit too much under the Beatles influence until they realised they were better off doing bluesrock and guitarrock- something the Fab Four never did. Those genres were created by the Stones, Hendrix, LedZep...

Johnny Guitar Watson was doing that in the 1950s.

SuperSoulFighter said:

I agree with a lot of what you said, but the concept of Exile on Main St. did not come from the Beatles; it was more of a result from being holed up in tax exile in a French Riviera mansion and truckloads of drugs. Yes, Satanic Majesties had the Stones a bit too much under the Beatles influence until they realised they were better off doing bluesrock and guitarrock- something the Fab Four never did. Those genres were created by the Stones, Hendrix, LedZep...

When I said that the existence of Exile on Main St. came from the Beatles conceptually, I'm not
talking about the historical circumstances surrounding the making of the album. I'm talking more
about how the album was constructed artistically in that it's an attempt to make a musical state-
ment with a collection of songs meant to heard as a cohesive unit and not just a bunch of singles
ready for the radio. The first pop band to make concept albums was the Beatles. The first pop
band to forego the collection of singles for artistic statements made via an album was again,
the Beatles.

And you're missing my point if you think that I'm also suggesting that the Stones and Led Zeppelin
owe anything to the Beatles outside of how they approached the construction of their albums. I
realize that the Stones and Led Zeppelin did not participate in emulating the Beatles stylistically or
musically. While the Beatles do venture into blues-rock occasionally, their influence to the afore-
mentioned is mostly in the conception of what a recording artist can do and should do. I say
"should do" because ALL albums made today are descended from the Beatles as being the
standard of what an album should sound like and be. I never claimed the Stones or Led Zeppelin
owe their musical style or the genre in which they existed to the Beatles. Biggie's Ready To Die
is indebted to the Beatles because it's a pop album purporting itself as an artistic statement,
even though it's hip hop, a sub-set of pop. Taylor Swift's 1989 owes its conception to the Beat-
les for the same reasons. This Beatles influence is the influence for pop music that is taken for
granted by every one in this thread who argue against the Beatles not being Europe's most in-
fluential pop band because it is just so ubiquitous and pervasive.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "guitar rock" but the Beatles were mostly guitar driven.
I say "mostly" because sometimes Paul's piano was the featured instrument.

These two articles are really, really interesting:

Kraftwerk 1

Kraftwerk 2

However, I maintain that it was the Beatles' approach to making pop music and albums as artistic
and commercial statements that has influenced all of pop recording music history while also having
an influence on western culture as well that far exceeds any other European band, including
Kraftwerk so that the Beatle influence is hardly more hype than reality.

duccichucka said:

duccichucka said:

Graycap23 said:

In my opinion it was and still is Kraftwerk. Most folks choose the Beatles and I still don't understand that answer. Outside of a handful of 1960's groups who copied the Beatles, their influence was more hype than reality.

[Edited 2/11/15 13:49pm]

This is the most fucking ridiculous post I've ever read at the Org. The Beatles have been the
most important pop cultural phenomenon in the past 100 years.

I simply cannot take u serious with this type of nonsense.

Graycap23 said:

unique said:

is that why publicists often get artists to slag off other artists and make fights to get stories in the papers for free publicity? so they will kill their career and the publicist won't have to work with them again? no-one is going to stop listening to or buying music from an artist because they said something about another artist they disagreed with

Ask TTD what happened 2 his career after his Beatles comment.

oh, it was a beatles comment rather than an album that wasn't a patch on the previous one, alienating his general audience and changing his name that turned him from a global success to a little remembered cult indie artist. i bet alana morrisette said something bad about the beatles too as her career went down the shit hole after her first album. i just thought it was because the follow up album was shite

SuperSoulFighter said:

duccichucka said:

These two articles are really, really interesting:

Kraftwerk 1

Kraftwerk 2

However, I maintain that it was the Beatles' approach to making pop music and albums as artistic
and commercial statements that has influenced all of pop recording music history while also having
an influence on western culture as well that far exceeds any other European band, including
Kraftwerk so that the Beatle influence is hardly more hype than reality.

Once again, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you're giving the Beatles a little too much credit by suggesting they created pop music all by themselves. They were influenced by what was going around them like everybody else.

When did I ever say or suggest that the Beatles created pop music all by themselves? I specific-
ally said:

"...it was the Beatles' approach to making pop music and albums as artistic and commercial state-
ments that has influenced all of pop recording music history while also having an influence on
western culture as well that far exceeds any other European band, including Kraftwerk so that
the Beatle influence is hardly more hype than reality."

Nothing in this says that the Beatles created all of pop music; and nothing in my previous posts
says as much either.

Graycap23 said:

duccichucka said:

This is the most fucking ridiculous post I've ever read at the Org. The Beatles have been the
most important pop cultural phenomenon in the past 100 years.

I simply cannot take u serious with this type of nonsense.

Heheheheh!

Gray, what you said:

"Outside of a handful of 1960's groups who copied the Beatles, their influence was more hype
than reality."

...is fucking ridiculous! And then I provided four reasons as to why this claim is fucking ridiculous.
One of the reasons for the utter ridiculousness of your opinion, more on that later, is from Rolling
Stone's website (the link I've already provided):

"No band has influenced pop culture the way the Beatles have. They were one of the best things
to happen in the twentieth century, let alone the Sixties...They made writing your own material
expected, rather than exceptional. As musicians, the Beatles proved that rock & roll could em-
brace a limitless variety of harmonies, structures, and sounds; virtually every rock experiment has
some precedent on Beatles records."

As a source, I think the Rolling Stone magazine is credible when assessing the merits of pop acts
as it has served as a pop culture purveyor/surveyor since the 60s. I'm trying to be decorous
about this but to deny the influence of the Beatles in pop music/culture and rank it as "hype" is
just fucking silly, Gray. The question is why would you make that claim in the first place?

My thoughts are: we are told over and over again that the Beatles are the messiahs of pop music
and that we should all genuflect at the base of their idols because our worship is owed to them.
It is inculcated into our culture that the Beatles deserve our collective respect. But the 60s and
the 70s, the zenith of Beatlemania and the freshest context in which their influence exists, is
just about 55 - 45 years ago. As namepeace suggests, their musical influence is waning and
we don't really hear Beatle-esque music in pop culture's consciousness anymore; we hear other
influences these days. The result of this is that you find some who will seek to deny the overall
influence of the Beatles because it is not so evident or overt. But if you read my posts, you will
discover how we still owe a debt of gratitude to the Beatles despite not being enamored as much
with their musical style and sensibilities anymore. So, I think there is some type of resentment
towards the Beatles; people don't want to hear about how cool or influential they are because
when we turn on the radio, we don't hear Beatle-esque pop. We hear "Autobahn" influences.
But again, if you read through my posts and scan the articles I present, you'll see how their in-
fluence transcended music but included other components they innovated that we take for
granted:

10 Beatles Innovations th...nged Music

So, Gray, I dunno what to tell ya: thinking that the Beatles are more hype than substance is an
argument that I don't think has any weight. Their influence is just so monolithically pervasive,
I kinda understand how some people can get annoyed with their legacy. It's human nature to be
contrarian against popularity for the sake of being contrarian without regard to the substance
the popularity is grounded upon. Finally, I'm not the type of thinker who likes to be tethered to
one idea only, so I did some research and discovered that there is an academic movement to
assess the legacy of Kraftwerk. I provided two articles that suggest that the musical influence
that is dominating our pop consciousness is indeed Kraftwerk. But as I stated, the Beatles in-
fluence is more than just a musical one, and that I maintain that it is other Beatle-derived aspects
of album production/art that keeps their legacy eternally vibrant, extant and far removed from
obsolescence.

like them or not, the answer is the beatles

MoBettaBliss said:

duccichucka said:

Graycap23 said:

I simply cannot take u serious with this type of nonsense.

Heheheheh!

Gray, what you said:

"Outside of a handful of 1960's groups who copied the Beatles, their influence was more hype
than reality."

...is fucking ridiculous! And then I provided four reasons as to why this claim is fucking ridiculous.
One of the reasons for the utter ridiculousness of your opinion, more on that later, is from Rolling
Stone's website (the link I've already provided):

"No band has influenced pop culture the way the Beatles have. They were one of the best things
to happen in the twentieth century, let alone the Sixties...They made writing your own material
expected, rather than exceptional. As musicians, the Beatles proved that rock & roll could em-
brace a limitless variety of harmonies, structures, and sounds; virtually every rock experiment has
some precedent on Beatles records."

As a source, I think the Rolling Stone magazine is credible when assessing the merits of pop acts
as it has served as a pop culture purveyor/surveyor since the 60s. I'm trying to be decorous
about this but to deny the influence of the Beatles in pop music/culture and rank it as "hype" is
just fucking silly, Gray. The question is why would you make that claim in the first place?

My thoughts are: we are told over and over again that the Beatles are the messiahs of pop music
and that we should all genuflect at the base of their idols because our worship is owed to them.
It is inculcated into our culture that the Beatles deserve our collective respect. But the 60s and
the 70s, the zenith of Beatlemania and the freshest context in which their influence exists, is
just about 55 - 45 years ago. As namepeace suggests, their musical influence is waning and
we don't really hear Beatle-esque music in pop culture's consciousness anymore; we hear other
influences these days. The result of this is that you find some who will seek to deny the overall
influence of the Beatles because it is not so evident or overt. But if you read my posts, you will
discover how we still owe a debt of gratitude to the Beatles despite not being enamored as much
with their musical style and sensibilities anymore. So, I think there is some type of resentment
towards the Beatles; people don't want to hear about how cool or influential they are because
when we turn on the radio, we don't hear Beatle-esque pop. We hear "Autobahn" influences.
But again, if you read through my posts and scan the articles I present, you'll see how their in-
fluence transcended music but included other components they innovated that we take for
granted:

10 Beatles Innovations th...nged Music

So, Gray, I dunno what to tell ya: thinking that the Beatles are more hype than substance is an
argument that I don't think has any weight. Their influence is just so monolithically pervasive,
I kinda understand how some people can get annoyed with their legacy. It's human nature to be
contrarian against popularity for the sake of being contrarian without regard to the substance
the popularity is grounded upon. Finally, I'm not the type of thinker who likes to be tethered to
one idea only, so I did some research and discovered that there is an academic movement to
assess the legacy of Kraftwerk. I provided two articles that suggest that the musical influence
that is dominating our pop consciousness is indeed Kraftwerk. But as I stated, the Beatles in-
fluence is more than just a musical one, and that I maintain that it is other Beatle-derived aspects
of album production/art that keeps their legacy eternally vibrant, extant and far removed from
obsolescence.

U just made me realize something I didn't consider. POP music.........one of the forms of music that I detest. I will agreeon the POP music side, but I hadn't even considered that in my original question because I pretty much don't like POP music. That said, I appreciate your responses 2 the question. As I stated already, I'm really focued on the "sound". I could care less about recording technics and or anything else that is not related 2 what I hear. As far as quoting articles from the media that help make the hype in the 1st place? Means nothing 2 me.

Anyone who thinks the Beatles have made a bigger impact on music than say, Mj, Prince, Hendrix, Bootsy, P-funk, James Brown, Miles, Stevie Wonder.....and other are nuts from my point of view.

[Edited 2/15/15 10:26am]

Graycap23 said:

U just made me realize something I didn't consider. POP music.........one of the forms of music that I detest. I will agreeon the POP music side, but I hadn't even considered that in my original question because I pretty much don't like POP music. That said, I appreciate your responses 2 the question. As I stated already, I'm really focued on the "sound". I could care less about recording technics and or anything else that is not related 2 what I hear. As far as quoting articles from the media that help make the hype in the 1st place? Means nothing 2 me.

Anyone who thinks the Beatles have made a bigger impact on music than say, Mj, Prince, Hendrix, Bootsy, P-funk, James Brown, Miles, Stevie Wonder.....and other are nuts from my point of view.

[Edited 2/15/15 10:26am]

Wait...you asked "What group from Europe influenced music the MOST?" and did not consider
that there could be a response of a pop group despite you mentioning Kraftwerk, who were
for all intents and purposes, pop? "Autobahn" is pop, dude, so I don't understand how you
can ask that question in all seriousness and not expect to hear the obvious answer. And like
most typical posters here who think just because they have an opinion means that all opinions
are weighted equally. This is why you could say something as ludicrous as "As far as quoting
articles from the media that help make the hype in the 1st place? Means nothing 2 me." Of course
I'm not surprised that I provide PROOF for my opinions and you ignore them. You have the right
to have the opinion that the sky is red. But that's a fucking dumb ass opinion just like it's a dumb
ass opinion that the Beatles are more hype than anything! You only say that about the Beatles
because you are largely ignorant of the contributions they have made to pop music. Read
the links, bro!

I prefer jazz and classical music over pop music. I'd rather listen to Bach than the Beatles; I'd
choose Thelonious Monk over the Beatles too. But I'm not a fucking idiot: despite my prefer-
ences, I still acknowledge what HISTORY has indicated - the Beatles are the most influential
European pop band of all time, musically, culturally, or any other "lee" you can think of. It just
seems that you are denying the Beatles' influence on music simply because you do not like them.
This is a flawed argument, dude. It's like saying "Kale cannot be so nutritious because I don't
like the way it tastes!" Um, no, whether or not you like kale has nothing to do with its nutritional
value. Whether or not you like the Beatles personally should have nothing to do with assessing
their influence. You're hardly being objective about this and appear to be happily dimwitted for
the sake of keeping your subjective opinion about the Beatles intact.

So, if you're asking for what European influenced music the most outside of pop, it would not be
the Beatles as it changes the complexion of your question completely.

Stop being so damn stubborn for the sake of your taste and get familiar.

duccichucka said:

Graycap23 said:

U just made me realize something I didn't consider. POP music.........one of the forms of music that I detest. I will agreeon the POP music side, but I hadn't even considered that in my original question because I pretty much don't like POP music. That said, I appreciate your responses 2 the question. As I stated already, I'm really focued on the "sound". I could care less about recording technics and or anything else that is not related 2 what I hear. As far as quoting articles from the media that help make the hype in the 1st place? Means nothing 2 me.

Anyone who thinks the Beatles have made a bigger impact on music than say, Mj, Prince, Hendrix, Bootsy, P-funk, James Brown, Miles, Stevie Wonder.....and other are nuts from my point of view.

[Edited 2/15/15 10:26am]

Wait...you asked "What group from Europe influenced music the MOST?" and did not consider
that there could be a response of a pop group despite you mentioning Kraftwerk, who were
for all intents and purposes, pop? "Autobahn" is pop, dude, so I don't understand how you
can ask that question in all seriousness and not expect to hear the obvious answer. And like
most typical posters here who think just because they have an opinion means that all opinions
are weighted equally. This is why you could say something as ludicrous as "As far as quoting
articles from the media that help make the hype in the 1st place? Means nothing 2 me." Of course
I'm not surprised that I provide PROOF for my opinions and you ignore them. You have the right
to have the opinion that the sky is red. But that's a fucking dumb ass opinion just like it's a dumb
ass opinion that the Beatles are more hype than anything! You only say that about the Beatles
because you are largely ignorant of the contributions they have made to pop music. Read
the links, bro!

I prefer jazz and classical music over pop music. I'd rather listen to Bach than the Beatles; I'd
choose Thelonious Monk over the Beatles too. But I'm not a fucking idiot: despite my prefer-
ences, I still acknowledge what HISTORY has indicated - the Beatles are the most influential
European pop band of all time, musically, culturally, or any other "lee" you can think of. It just
seems that you are denying the Beatles' influence on music simply because you do not like them.
This is a flawed argument, dude. It's like saying "Kale cannot be so nutritious because I don't
like the way it tastes!" Um, no, whether or not you like kale has nothing to do with its nutritional
value. Whether or not you like the Beatles personally should have nothing to do with assessing
their influence. You're hardly being objective about this and appear to be happily dimwitted for
the sake of keeping your subjective opinion about the Beatles intact.

So, if you're asking for what European influenced music the most outside of pop, it would not be
the Beatles as it changes the complexion of your question completely.

Stop being so damn stubborn for the sake of your taste and get familiar.

Didn't I just say u made me realize the "Pop" factor?

I'd say teh Beatles too, but the Bee Gees (who were born in England, not Australia) influence is pretty underrated.

Another way to look at it is since The Beatles have sold more than any other act and in many countries, then they'd have the most influence by default. How can a group that broke up over 40 years ago have one of the biggest selling albums of the 2000s with 1. It contained no new material. Kraftwerk & The Rolling Stones didn't do it. The Beatles are also continue to have many books written about them including their music, and also have lots of merchandising like Rock Band & Monopoly and have a Cirque du Soleil show. If they had no influence, these things wouldn't sell and companies wouldn't make them.

Ringo Starr manages to get famous musicians for his All Starr tours, which have been going on since the late 1980s. Not many others can do that.

MickyDolenz said:

Another way to look at it is since The Beatles have sold more than any other act and in many countries, then they'd have the most influence by default. How can a group that broke up over 40 years ago have one of the biggest selling albums of the 2000s with 1. It contained no new material. Kraftwerk & The Rolling Stones didn't do it. The Beatles are also continue to have many books written about them including their music, and also have lots of merchandising like Rock Band & Monopoly and have a Cirque du Soleil show. If they had no influence, these things wouldn't sell and companies wouldn't make them.

It really isn't an arguement. I guess I'm learning something new. I still don't "get" it but so be it.

Graycap23 said:

It really isn't an arguement. I guess I'm learning something new. I still don't "get" it but so be it.

Michael Jackson didn't buy the ATV catalog for no reason