re: Poll: Wonderwall v. Any Beatles Song

quote:

---

Actually, I'm almost 60 years old and LIVED it. They were far bigger as a cultural influence (and as performers, by the way) than any band before or after... it's not even close. Subsequent bands such as the Stones and Led Zeppelin would not have even been given air time except that the Beatles blazed the trail and set the world on fire... and NOT just the musical world. The culture clash of the 60's... the Vietnam protests, the Kent State's, the sexual revolution.... just about EVERYTHING different about the 60's and carried over since was influenced by the impetus that was the Beatles.

From my vantage point, which is vastly superior to yours, you're just plainly ignorant.

---

Nobody is disputing whether the Beatles used to be big. But thanks for opining from your superior vantage point.

quote:

---

The Beatles are not relevant because you don't hear them at parties or on the radio when you and your bros go on a ski trip

---

Last time I went "on a ski trip with my bros" Magical Mystery Tour was on repeat

quote:

---

Last time I went "on a ski trip with my bros" Magical Mystery Tour was on repeat

---

Then pies and fries on the bunny slope? Cool story.

quote:

---

1966/7 disagrees with you.

---

I have no idea what this means.

None of them had sex with my mother, if that's what you're asking.

quote:

---

Here is what I think about The Beatles. I think they've been generally recognized as the greatest band of all time for so long that people long ago stopped actually considering the tiny little question of whether they're really that good. Whether they are in fact the greatest band ever, of if they became the greatest band of all time because they were famous for being the greatest band of all time.

And so how do we figure this out? If a the greatness of a band is so ingrained into our culture that we have to accept it as fact or risk ridicule, then what is the solution to determine whether they were possibly inappropiately pedestalized in the first place?

---

which would be a fine argument, but that's not what you've argued at all. You've actually argued that the Beatles are no longer culturally relevant while at the same time, this argument here relies upon the Beatles being not only culturally relevant, but being the absolute tentpole of pop music. Your argument seems to be "I don't like the Beatles so they aren't relevant to culture, but everyone says the Beatles are the best band ever and they're wrong."

It's an internally conflicting argument. So, to deal with the argument you've been making about Beatles not being relevant now: you're not just wrong, you're extremely wrong. What's worse, you know you're wrong, and you admit you're wrong. Because what you're really arguing against is the Beatles massive cultural saturation and whether it's deserved. Which is at least an interesting argument. So, let's deal with that separately. But a band can't be "generally recognized as the greatest band of all time" and "so ingrained into our culture" as you say and not be relevant to pop culture today. They clearly are, and you flat out admit it. Stop arguing against that point. It makes you look ridiculous.

Now, is the Beatles massive cultural influence "deserved"?

Well, if you don't like their music, then you don't like it. Tastes vary from person to person and I'm not going to argue that you like it. You don't. Good for you. So I'm going to avoid "they make good music" other than to say that they really do.

OK, what is the foundation of their reputation?

ONE. Beatlemania. I didn't live through it, but go back and look at the pop charts. It's crazy. They had the entire top 5 at one point. They were a pop culture phenomenon literally unmatched in our culture. Not even Johnny Carson was as central to the monoculture. Hell, they make Elvis look unpopular.

But even more important is that they saved rock n roll. Rock was considered a fad in the 50s that had largely died out. Buddy Holly died. Little Richard went back to making "race" records (well, his music didn't change, just the marketing). Elvis went to the army and came back a crooner in the vein of Tin Pan Alley. The British Invasion, led by the Beatles, transformed rock into a viable musical genre beyond a short fad.

TWO. The LP.

The Beatles influence is so massive, they changed how we consume music. Before the Beatles, pop musicians largely sold singles. Full albums were collections of singles, but it was the 45 that was the lifeblood of pop music. The Beatles were one of the first pop bands to released full albums conceived as one coherent work of art. This is a change so fundamental, it's hard for us to understand the seismic shift. They would then introduce us to the "concept album" a few years later.

THREE. Songwriting.

Pop singers were not songwriters. They largely played songs written by other people. A truly ambitious band might actually choose the songs they were playing and then write a few songs of their own. But the Beatles moved from primarily a cover band, like every other pop band, and started primarily writing and controlling their own material. They were their own masters. The Rolling Stones didn't write their won songs until they saw the Beatles, and they even stole their format of writing (the two man team).

The Beatles would then branch out their lyrical muscles, inspired by Bob Dylan, and write about more and more topics than just getting a girlfriend. The same band that wrote I Wanna Hold Your Hand wrote Tomorrow Never Comes just three years later. Amazing development.

FOUR. Recording.

The Beatles changed how bands recorded. Pop music wasn't taken seriously as an art form, so their records were recorded nearly live and on the cheap. The Beatles invested heavily in state of the art recording, and were pioneers in looping dual tracking.

So the Beatles changed what bands wrote, played, how it was recorded, how it was consumed, and what the content was. They also created a genre, it's called all of modern pop music.

quote:

---

which would be a fine argument, but that's not what you've argued at all. You've actually argued that the Beatles are no longer culturally relevant while at the same time, this argument here relies upon the Beatles being not only culturally relevant, but being the absolute tentpole of pop music. Your argument seems to be "I don't like the Beatles so they aren't relevant to culture, but everyone says the Beatles are the best band ever and they're wrong."

It's an internally conflicting argument. So, to deal with the argument you've been making about Beatles not being relevant now: you're not just wrong, you're extremely wrong. What's worse, you know you're wrong, and you admit you're wrong. Because what you're really arguing against is the Beatles massive cultural saturation and whether it's deserved. Which is at least an interesting argument. So, let's deal with that separately. But a band can't be "generally recognized as the greatest band of all time" and "so ingrained into our culture" as you say and not be relevant to pop culture today. They clearly are, and you flat out admit it. Stop arguing against that point. It makes you look ridiculous.

Now, is the Beatles massive cultural influence "deserved"?

Well, if you don't like their music, then you don't like it. Tastes vary from person to person and I'm not going to argue that you like it. You don't. Good for you. So I'm going to avoid "they make good music" other than to say that they really do.

OK, what is the foundation of their reputation?

ONE. Beatlemania. I didn't live through it, but go back and look at the pop charts. It's crazy. They had the entire top 5 at one point. They were a pop culture phenomenon literally unmatched in our culture. Not even Johnny Carson was as central to the monoculture. Hell, they make Elvis look unpopular.

But even more important is that they saved rock n roll. Rock was considered a fad in the 50s that had largely died out. Buddy Holly died. Little Richard went back to making "race" records (well, his music didn't change, just the marketing). Elvis went to the army and came back a crooner in the vein of Tin Pan Alley. The British Invasion, led by the Beatles, transformed rock into a viable musical genre beyond a short fad.

TWO. The LP.

The Beatles influence is so massive, they changed how we consume music. Before the Beatles, pop musicians largely sold singles. Full albums were collections of singles, but it was the 45 that was the lifeblood of pop music. The Beatles were one of the first pop bands to released full albums conceived as one coherent work of art. This is a change so fundamental, it's hard for us to understand the seismic shift. They would then introduce us to the "concept album" a few years later.

THREE. Songwriting.

Pop singers were not songwriters. They largely played songs written by other people. A truly ambitious band might actually choose the songs they were playing and then write a few songs of their own. But the Beatles moved from primarily a cover band, like every other pop band, and started primarily writing and controlling their own material. They were their own masters. The Rolling Stones didn't write their won songs until they saw the Beatles, and they even stole their format of writing (the two man team).

The Beatles would then branch out their lyrical muscles, inspired by Bob Dylan, and write about more and more topics than just getting a girlfriend. The same band that wrote I Wanna Hold Your Hand wrote Tomorrow Never Comes just three years later. Amazing development.

FOUR. Recording.

The Beatles changed how bands recorded. Pop music wasn't taken seriously as an art form, so their records were recorded nearly live and on the cheap. The Beatles invested heavily in state of the art recording, and were pioneers in looping dual tracking.

So the Beatles changed what bands wrote, played, how it was recorded, how it was consumed, and what the content was. They also created a genre, it's called all of modern pop music.

---

Baloo 1
Bobbyray21 0

quote:

---

I stopped reading after this. This thread is a goddamn cadre of strawmen.

---

Well, to catch you up on what you missed, it was me first tearing apart your contradictory and ridiculous argument then moving to your interesting question and giving you an honest answer. Which you don't want to read because you're not interested in learning anything. I'm not surprised you didn't want to read it. Most delusional people throw up mental safeguards to prevent themselves from facing the contradictions of their worldview.

quote:

---

Baloo

---