- 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
Why do The Beatles get a pass in changing their style but any band now, no?
Posted on 9/25/13 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 9/25/13 at 5:38 pm
Why do so many bands get flack for changing their sound and fans call them "pretentious" for trying some things that are a little to a lot different?
The Beatles went from rock pop to I don't even know what you would call it, and when bands try to reach out into more artsy forms of music, there is a backlash by many of the fans.
The Beatles went from rock pop to I don't even know what you would call it, and when bands try to reach out into more artsy forms of music, there is a backlash by many of the fans.
13
Posted on 9/25/13 at 5:39 pm to Pectus
because they had street credibility
Posted on 9/25/13 at 5:40 pm to Pectus
They could have made an opera and it would have exploded. People just loved the shite out of the Beatles
Posted on 9/25/13 at 5:43 pm to CaptainPanic
You'll hate my analogy, but Coldplay was pretty big with Parachutes and Rush of Blood to the Head, but people like Parachutes and nothing else...all the way to now.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 5:47 pm to Pectus
The Beatles encompassed several styles within a single album. They never abandoned rock and roll. They certainly did experiment though.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 5:50 pm to HeadyBrosevelt
With the amount of records they put out in their short time as a band i don't think they had a choice but to change it up some
Posted on 9/25/13 at 5:55 pm to grifterfad
They didn't have to put out an album.
In fact, some bands nowadays tell themselves to wait a few year so that they can get the best music they can make to their fans.
Why is there such a tolerable difference because The Beatles are The Beatles?
In fact, some bands nowadays tell themselves to wait a few year so that they can get the best music they can make to their fans.
Why is there such a tolerable difference because The Beatles are The Beatles?
Posted on 9/25/13 at 6:01 pm to Pectus
I don't think that The Beatles so much changed their style as they evolved and failed to ever really be put in a 'box' that was their musical style. I, personally, enjoy a band trying out different sounds.
They're poppy. They rock some. They get folky. They wrote music without a formula or an ideal sound in mind. They just wrote the Hell out of some music, and they tailored it to what the 4 guys (plus the occasional extra) could do. The result is interesting to listen to. It's not just fast vs slow songs, but it's a clash of styles that makes you kind of wonder what's coming next.
I'll get hell for it, but the best example of a band recently doing this that comes to mind was Panic! At the Disco's 'Pretty Odd.' The hit from the album was 'Nine in the Afternoon' which sounded about like everything from their first album, but every other song on the album makes you almost question if you're listening to the same band. And the music was also interesting. It's not I-IV-V with the occasional 'vi' tossed in so that it was easy to write, which is another thing The Beatles avoided regularly. When they did follow the 'format' songs, they covered the boringness with some pretty good harmonies and a good poppy upbeat that it was hard not to enjoy.
They're poppy. They rock some. They get folky. They wrote music without a formula or an ideal sound in mind. They just wrote the Hell out of some music, and they tailored it to what the 4 guys (plus the occasional extra) could do. The result is interesting to listen to. It's not just fast vs slow songs, but it's a clash of styles that makes you kind of wonder what's coming next.
I'll get hell for it, but the best example of a band recently doing this that comes to mind was Panic! At the Disco's 'Pretty Odd.' The hit from the album was 'Nine in the Afternoon' which sounded about like everything from their first album, but every other song on the album makes you almost question if you're listening to the same band. And the music was also interesting. It's not I-IV-V with the occasional 'vi' tossed in so that it was easy to write, which is another thing The Beatles avoided regularly. When they did follow the 'format' songs, they covered the boringness with some pretty good harmonies and a good poppy upbeat that it was hard not to enjoy.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 6:02 pm to Pectus
quote:I'm not sure what you're complaining about, but...
They didn't have to put out an album.
In fact, some bands nowadays tell themselves to wait a few year so that they can get the best music they can make to their fans.
Why is there such a tolerable difference because The Beatles are The Beatles?
Pop acts were considered to have very short careers in those days (Elvis being the exception). The business model was to release as much as you can as quickly as you can before the audience moves on to someone else.
The Beatles helped to change this way of thinking, though by the time you really began to see the effects in action the band had split up.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 6:18 pm to Kafka
Typically bands don't go from commercially viable pop rock to less commercially viable non pop music.
A lot of popular bands lose their "edge" that they may have had and go to something more "polished"
I.E. kings of Leon
A lot of popular bands lose their "edge" that they may have had and go to something more "polished"
I.E. kings of Leon
Posted on 9/25/13 at 6:32 pm to TheDoc
One advantage the Beatles had is they were not as rigidly compartmentalized as acts today. Their singles were made for top 40 AM radio, which by definition was a diverse format, at least in those days.
Musical diversity is not really encouraged today, since most outlets classify themselves by the genre or even subgenre.
Musical diversity is not really encouraged today, since most outlets classify themselves by the genre or even subgenre.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 6:39 pm to Kafka
Beatles were the perfect storm. A BOY BAND that actually had incredible MUSICIANS.
From the beginning they had the 13-17 year old girl demo locked up. As they got older so did The Beatles. Will not happen again. People now who want to be considered musicians do not want anything to do with a boy band label.
Just luck. Perfect storm, the 60's, incredible musicians, and 2 incredible songwriters. Maybe 3. How many greats is George Harrison responsible for?
From the beginning they had the 13-17 year old girl demo locked up. As they got older so did The Beatles. Will not happen again. People now who want to be considered musicians do not want anything to do with a boy band label.
Just luck. Perfect storm, the 60's, incredible musicians, and 2 incredible songwriters. Maybe 3. How many greats is George Harrison responsible for?
Posted on 9/25/13 at 6:45 pm to HeadyBrosevelt
quote:
They certainly did experiment though.
With more than music.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 6:55 pm to Pectus
Seriously? Because they were good at all the different things they tried. Bands rarely catch flak from anyone but teenagers if they can actually pull off sounding different. Find me two Radiohead albums that sound the same.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 7:11 pm to Pectus
The Beatles were able to reflect the unique cultural shift going on at that point in history. Young people quickly went from being unquestioning rule followers who listened to cute, boy bands to rebellious hippies who questioned authority. I would say if the beatles hadn't have changed they would have been done.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 7:35 pm to Pectus
quote:
Why do so many bands get flack for changing their sound and fans call them "pretentious" for trying some things that are a little to a lot different?
The Beatles went from rock pop to I don't even know what you would call it, and when bands try to reach out into more artsy forms of music, there is a backlash by many of the fans.
When the Beatles did something, lots of times they were innovators doing it for the first time. They showed the rest what was possible and blew people's minds.
People today can slag on some band for trying different things because they're just trying something someone else already did.
This post was edited on 9/25/13 at 7:36 pm
Posted on 9/25/13 at 7:38 pm to LSU alum wannabe
quote:
and 2 incredible songwriters. Maybe 3. How many greats is George Harrison responsible for?
My personal favorite of the three.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 8:19 pm to Sayre
quote:
When the Beatles did something, lots of times they were innovators doing it for the first time. They showed the rest what was possible and blew people's minds.
This. The Beatles didn't change styles, they invented new styles.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 8:19 pm to Sayre
quote:
quote:
and 2 incredible songwriters. Maybe 3. How many greats is George Harrison responsible for?
He wrote Something
Posted on 9/25/13 at 8:42 pm to Pectus
quote:
You'll hate my analogy, but Coldplay was pretty big with Parachutes and Rush of Blood to the Head, but people like Parachutes and nothing else...all the way to now.
That was me. I was excited when x/y came out, and after a couple of listens, I was done. I liked Coldplay, not Coldplay trying to be U2.
I'm not sure if I'd even enjoy listening to their old records anymore. I kind of grew out of "sensitive" music after I got married.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News