re: Poll: Wonderwall v. Any Beatles Song

quote:

---

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

---

its not though. the beatles are still relevant BECAUSE us 80s kids still listen to them. we're the reason Beatles shirts are still worn, the reason their vinyls and cd still sell, the reason music critics still have a reason to throw in a "beatles-esque" reference in their reviews.

if it was strictly a "time and place" issue, this thread wouldnt even be needed, since beatles legacy would have gone the way of the monkees or the bee gees. cornered in a niche modern audience. this so far removed from the hype, if the music really wasnt any good, it would have faded.

Why is this still going on?

quote:

---

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.

---

Would Sanchez Foghorn be popular or not? I can't tell from your post. I think you said both yes and no.

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

quote:

---

I definitely think the common listener fails to make this distinction.

---

---

Has anyone made that argument in 16 pages of this discussion?

quote:

---

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?

---

According to your combination time machine/crystal ball, these advances were going to happen, ergo they weren't that important.

Can't wait for your thread on how Steve Jobs was overrated and isn't culturally significant either.

quote:

---

It sounds like The Beatles had a greater influence on the music industry than on the underlying notes being sold.

---

I don't know how you distinguish the difference.

Are you saying that you can't think of bands that do what Beatles did musically and thus they didn't influence music?

quote:

---

bobbyray21

---

Youre one of the better posters on here. zero homo

but cmon man. if oasis as better than the beatles, then there are 100 bands better than them

which is false.

quote:

---

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.

---

In my view, it boils down to framework of the argument. A criteria that everyone can agree upon, and clearly defined terms, if we're trying to come to an objective conclusion.

You're challenging The Beatles from a multitude of angles. I'm not even sure what the main point is anymore, but let's look at whether or not their music holds up, since that's what you mentioned in the above quote.

I actually think this would be one of the easiest points to argue because to a large degree it should be quantifiable. Sales, downloads, Youtube views, radio airtime, etc.

As another poster mentioned earlier in the thread, their compilation album released in 2000 was extremely successful.

1 (The Beatles album)

quote:

---

In addition, 1 is the seventh best-selling album since early 1991,[2] the best-selling album in the US from 2000 to 2009,[3] and the best selling album of the decade worldwide. It is also the fastest selling album in history.[4] 1 was re-released in digitally remastered format in September 2011.[5]

---

Now, if your argument is that it was mostly older people that purchased the album, I'd guess that you're probably right. I'm not sure exactly how popular The Beatles are with young people across the board, but I was born in 1982 and I like them fwiw.

You and I have had similar experiences with certain social groups being disinterested in The Beatles. My only possible explanation for these pockets of people is that - and this is just an off-the-dome hypothesis - maybe a lot of these people had parents that were fans of The Beatles, so when these kids hit their teen years (and maybe hit a little rebellious phase) they gravitated to other artists of the Classic Rock era, associating The Beatles with their parents and viewing the music as not trendy/cool/edgy/whatever. There could maybe even be a subconscious element to that, having to do with their relationship with their parents, buuuut I don't want to get too carried away with that idea.

I could be wrong with my hypothesis, but I do remember having friends in HS that would reject certain artists because their parents listened to them. My parents never really listened to The Beatles, and I took to their music right away when I first heard it.

Blur


Oasis

I´m still in Bruddahlandia, believe or not. I don´t. frick my life.

I hope you are well. Still in South Carolina, I take it.

quote:

---

No plans to return to futballlandia anytime soon?

---

Nothing is clear. Very, very frustrating.

Noted. You can edit now.