- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Poll: Wonderwall v. Any Beatles Song
Posted on 4/19/13 at 1:35 pm to GCTiger11
Posted on 4/19/13 at 1:35 pm to GCTiger11
quote:
Relevancy and influence is not.
No, I understand it just fine. I'm of the view that music evaluation is basically 100% subjective, but my point here is objectively based. I wish it were to easier to compartmentalize subjectivity and objectivity in a discussion of music. It isn't. They bleed over.
But what I'm talking about here is the music. Relevancy and influence are broad terms. Think about the two just in terms of the music. Pretend that Beatlemania never happened. Pretend that the Beatles' catalog was actually written by an indie band named "Sanchez Foghorn" that hipsters don't even know about yet. Now listen to that catalog. Is Sanchez Foghorn a great band? Will they ever make it big?
ETA: I have no idea why 'Sanchez Foghorn' popped in my head, but I'm pretty proud that it did.
This post was edited on 4/19/13 at 1:41 pm
1
Posted on 4/19/13 at 1:40 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
If the greatest band ever moniker isn't heavily influenced by the quality of the songs said band has put out, then I will wave the white flag.
This is where the muddling comes in. It depends on how you define quality. Because no one is sure exactly what you mean, this could fly off into any direction.
The way you have written it makes it seem like you're using subjective criteria to make an objective statement.
This post was edited on 4/19/13 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 4/19/13 at 1:44 pm to inadaze
quote:
The way you have written it sounds like you're using subjective criteria to make an objective statement.
I'm trying very hard not to. In asking whether the music holds up, I'm not just going off what I think. Just like you did yourself, I'm trying to go off observations of those around me. It's objectivity via observed subjectivity, if that makes any sense whatsoever.
Posted on 4/19/13 at 1:44 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
I don't like the music, but my point is and has always been about more than my own subjective evaluation.
no, it hasn't. People are objecting to your objective evaluation. As for you subjective personal evaluation, no one really cares. It's a short conversation.
"You like it?"
"No."
"I think you do."
"Nope. I don't."
"Okay."
I mean, how do you even have the conversation beyond that? If it's about your subjective evaluation, you don't like them. Fine. I'm not objecting to you not liking them. I don't like Queen. But I don't go around telling people they are wrong for liking Queen. I think people are being honest with me when they say they really like them. And moving past the subjective, it would be ridiculous for me to assert Queen has a limited influence or relevence due to my own personal evaluation. In fact, I understand that I am the outlier, and I completely agree that Queen has had massive influence on music and pop culture.
But I was responding specifically to:
quote:
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?
(I added the bolding)
Those are your words. And its your question. Were the Beatles "inappropriately pedestalized"? So, I looked at their influence and career to determine if they were. Or am I supposed to believe that the sole arbiter of what gets to be part of the musical canon is bobbyray21? I tried to answer your more interesting question, because if the question is "what's your favorite band" I honestly could not care less.
Posted on 4/19/13 at 1:45 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Pretend that Beatlemania never happened. Pretend that the Beatles' catalog was actually written by an indie band
So now we need to omit certain things to drop to the level of Oasis?
You are so downsy.
Posted on 4/19/13 at 1:52 pm to Baloo
quote:
Those are your words. And its your question. Were the Beatles "inappropriately pedestalized"? So, I looked at their influence and career to determine if they were. Or am I supposed to believe that the sole arbiter of what gets to be part of the musical canon is bobbyray21? I tried to answer your more interesting question, because if the question is "what's your favorite band" I honestly could not care less.
Take the Sanchez Foghorn test. Use that as your guide to determine pedestalization appropriateness.
Posted on 4/19/13 at 1:52 pm to bobbyray21
Oasis over the Beatles? 
Man I'm old. I Gotta Feelin < Glass Onion < Something
Man I'm old. I Gotta Feelin < Glass Onion < Something Posted on 4/19/13 at 1:52 pm to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
So now we need to omit certain things to drop to the level of Oasis?
You are so downsy.
Omit? Naw dude, you can keep all their songs.
Posted on 4/19/13 at 1:53 pm to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
Pretend that Beatlemania never happened. Pretend that the Beatles' catalog was actually written by an indie band
Maybe the hypo should have been that an alien crashed into earth, has 5 minutes to live, and his choice of a song to listen to before he dies is either (1) anything by the Beatles, or (2) Wonderwall
Posted on 4/19/13 at 1:56 pm to gizmoflak
quote:
Maybe the hypo should have been that an alien crashed into earth, has 5 minutes to live, and his choice of a song to listen to before he dies is either (1) anything by the Beatles, or (2) Wonderwall
That would work, except that the alien probably hasn't heard music from our planet before. His choice might be uninformed. Poor alien might be forced to hear "hard day's night' as he gasps for his last breath. I wouldn't wish that upon anybody.
Posted on 4/19/13 at 2:02 pm to Baloo
quote:
(I added the bolding)
Those are your words. And its your question. Were the Beatles "inappropriately pedestalized"? So, I looked at their influence and career to determine if they were. Or am I supposed to believe that the sole arbiter of what gets to be part of the musical canon is bobbyray21? I tried to answer your more interesting question, because if the question is "what's your favorite band" I honestly could not care less.
Does it make sense why discussing, say, the magnitude of beatlemania is a really bad way to determine whether the band was appropriately pedestalized? You've got the causation running the wrong way.
Posted on 4/19/13 at 2:47 pm to bobbyray21
If Sanchez Foghorn did what The Beatles did in the 60s then yes, they'd be the GOAT. Do you really just think they sold 1 billion albums just for being The Beatles?
Posted on 4/19/13 at 3:00 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Does it make sense why discussing, say, the magnitude of beatlemania is a really bad way to determine whether the band was appropriately pedestalized?
You seem to be operating under some delusion that the Beatles are generally considered the greatest musical TALENTS ever. What gives you that notion? I don't know anybody who thinks that. There have been empirically greater musicians and songwriting is itself a subjective evaluation.
I happen to think that "Bridge Over Troubled Water" and "The Boxer" by Paul Simon are better songs than anything the Beatles ever wrote... but that's a matter of taste and you're perfectly entitled to feel the same way about "Wonderwall."
But in terms of lasting impact and influence upon both the music world and the world at large it's not even close... the Beatles are FAR AND AWAY the greatest.
You believe they shouldn't have been idolized to the degree they have been. But, once again, the simple fact is that they were and still are and you can't change that. You're entitled to idolize whomever you please, but you venture into stupidland when you name other bands as culturally greater.
This post was edited on 4/19/13 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 4/19/13 at 3:06 pm to Rex
Rex nailed it. Bridge over Troubled Water is my 5th favorite song of all time. The only Beatles song I like more than that track is In My Life. I'll take Bridge over any other song The Beatles did.
Posted on 4/19/13 at 4:30 pm to GCTiger11
quote:
If Sanchez Foghorn did what The Beatles did in the 60s then yes, they'd be the GOAT.
No no. Sanchez Foghorn is a present-day band. They're based out of Portland. Four guys in their early 20s.
Posted on 4/19/13 at 4:44 pm to Rex
quote:
You seem to be operating under some delusion that the Beatles are generally considered the greatest musical TALENTS ever. What gives you that notion? I don't know anybody who thinks that. There have been empirically greater musicians and songwriting is itself a subjective evaluation.
I definitely think the common listener fails to make this distinction.
quote:
I happen to think that "Bridge Over Troubled Water" and "The Boxer" by Paul Simon are better songs than anything the Beatles ever wrote... but that's a matter of taste and you're perfectly entitled to feel the same way about "Wonderwall."
I think the Boxer is an incredible incredible song. Not that anybody cares.
quote:
But in terms of lasting impact and influence upon both the music world and the world at large it's not even close... the Beatles are FAR AND AWAY the greatest.
But this is where I take issue. We can insert Baloo's post in here to discuss the Beatles' influence, but I've still got this unconvinced smirk on my face. Studio advances would have happened anyway. Bands would have started writing their own music anyway, or perished. The Beatles are influential because of the LP? It sounds like The Beatles had a greater influence on the music industry than on the underlying notes being sold.
quote:
You believe they shouldn't have been idolized to the degree they have been. But, once again, the simple fact is that they were and still are and you can't change that. You're entitled to idolize whomever you please, but you venture into stupidland when you name other bands as culturally greater.
Well then let's not use that word. Poor word choice by me. (It happens.) Let's just say that The Beatles' reputation is writing checks its catalog can't cash. IMHO
Posted on 4/19/13 at 4:54 pm to Rex
quote:
I happen to think that "Bridge Over Troubled Water" and "The Boxer" by Paul Simon are better songs than anything the Beatles ever wrote... but that's a matter of taste and you're perfectly entitled to feel the same way about "Wonderwall.
Wonderwall came to be in the thread title somewhat arbitrarily, though I do think it's a great great song.
Posted on 4/19/13 at 5:31 pm to CaptainPanic
Beatles. This is a 'generation' question cause all you followers that were born in the 80's and above are going to say..."Wonderwall"...just because it was drilled in your heads for years. The same can go for why I would choose the Beatles, but listen to Wonderwall and then to Penny Lane, All you need is Love, etc. It's not even close. The Beatles. End of Thread.
Posted on 4/19/13 at 5:31 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
It happened. I agree.
quote:
I cannot disagree
quote:
Good for them.
quote:
I also cannot disagree.
I'm glad you think your thread was a beatdown. Pat yourself on the back. But I don't disagree with anything you've written.
I'm talking about the music, man.
OP:
Understands why the Beatles are considered to be the best.
Doesn't understand why everyone thinks the Beatles are the best.
Posted on 4/19/13 at 5:39 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
No no. Sanchez Foghorn is a present-day band. They're based out of Portland. Four guys in their early 20s.
This make no sense whatsoever. Are you saying if The Beatles' music was released today, no one would care for it? Wow dude. I doubt Hard Day's Night or Can't Buy Me Love would perform well in the present day's chart if that's what you're trying to get me to say.
But this argument might be the dumbest shite I've ever seen posted on this site. Music wouldn't be what it is today without The Beatles.
I think I understand what you're trying to say. If you go timetravel in your Delorean, grab all the Beatles' music from the 60s, brought it to the 2013, nobody would care for it. LMAO. Well no duh, Mersey-beat or psychedelic rock isn't necessarily represented in today's charts.
Imagine dominoes. The Beatles are a very important lead domino. You tip it over. That next domino that it tops over represents a band it (Beatles) has influenced. And then the next domino represents a band that THAT Beatle-influenced band influenced. And on and on until it reaches the 2013 domino, or present-day. You want to go back, put that lead Beatle domino in next to the 2013 domino, and say "Meh, I don't see what the big deal is"? It doesn't work that way because we wouldn't be at that 2013 domino had it not been for The Beatles domino to lead that way. Do you see how no one in this 15 page thread is agreeing with you? That's usually a sign you might have the dumb.
This post was edited on 4/19/13 at 5:49 pm
Page 15 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News