Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

J.Black wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:
As with a plethora of other pop musicians that did/do the exact same thing, as has been the case for a very, very, very long time.

QFT

The Beatles were never special.

I see we have a lot of History majors logged in tonight.

The Beatles were never special.

Quoted for wrongness. Sorry mate, not having a go or anything, but this 'oh, The Beatles weren't a big deal' stuff is just nonsense. They made a massive impact on the face of popular music around the world. The next most influential musician's (Bob Dylan IMO) body of work doesn't even come close to the size and scope of the Beatles' contribution. They are widely accepted as the best pop group of all time - I think people try to appear hip by downplaying them.
They DID have a sizeable impact on the recording industry, too. They ushered in the advent of longer recording times and greater experimentation in the studio - inventing several new techniques in the process. Prog rock and everything that came about as a result of it, could never have happened without The Beatles. In commercial terms they were amongst the only TRUE megastars of the 60s - the fact their legacy has endured, and that the music still stands up today is a testament to how inflential they have been.

As for John Lennon - he was an artist. Artists are not always 'good' people. I said in the OP that he no doubt had his faults. Did he treat his first wife and son poorly? Probably. In that respect he was no different to many fathers - but he was ALSO the author(and co-author) of:

Imagine, Mind Games, A Day In The Life, Strawberry Fields Forever, I Am The Walrus, Tomorrow Never Knows, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, All You Need Is Love, Across The Universe, Woman, Happy Xmas (War Is Over), Whatever Gets You Thru The Night, Power To The People, I'm Only Sleeping, Norwegian Wood, In My Life, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, Give Peace A Chance, Working Class Hero etc. etc.etc.

And for that reason I choose to remember him.


p.s That wasn't all aimed at you J.Black

Ahtman wrote:I see we have a lot of Music History majors logged in tonight.

Fixed that looming specter of shining truth and utter honesty for you... ahem....

Micheal Jackson, Elvis Presley, The Beach Boys... who, the feth, can tell the actual differences? A Music History Major that is what... .

The Beatles were no more special than Jimi Hendrix or Janis Joplin were in their time. The only way that they changed the music industry, is by infinitely linking it to sex, drugs, and rock n' roll. The Beatles contributed here as well, and by no small fault of the industry itself.

Sex, Drugs and India; that was the Beatles... and no, they simply did not change history as we know it, they sang a few ditties and people applauded no more vigirously than the crowd at a lady GaGa concert, or a Britney Spears concert in her time. Yes, I know most of the Beatles tunes, and I do not know most of Gaga's tunes, but that does not matter in the slightest. Both icons represent the music industry, and stand for what profit means. I have seen better 'no-name' musicians that absolutely blow the Beatles out of the water without contest on various levels; but that does not matter, because the Beatles explicitly represented the music industry at large. Not independent artists and their pursuits...

And yes, I enjoy the Beatles.

Albatross wrote:

Quoted for wrongness. Sorry mate, not having a go or anything, but this 'oh, The Beatles weren't a big deal' stuff is just nonsense. They made a massive impact on the face of popular music around the world. The next most influential musician's (Bob Dylan IMO) body of work doesn't even come close to the size and scope of the Beatles' contribution. They are widely accepted as the best pop group of all time - I think people try to appear hip by downplaying them.
They DID have a sizeable impact on the recording industry, too. They ushered in the advent of longer recording times and greater experimentation in the studio - inventing several new techniques in the process. Prog rock and everything that came about as a result of it, could never have happened without The Beatles. In commercial terms they were amongst the only TRUE megastars of the 60s - the fact their legacy has endured, and that the music still stands up today is a testament to how inflential they have been.

The Beatles were no more influential that any other Pop sensation in their time. As they were a group, which was developed into a specific marketing tool, and ultimately destroyed Jazz as a mainstream culture; the Beatles collectively maintained a higher iconic status worldwide, but within their base, may people found other music through them. This could be seen as them performing a 'service' of some kind, but it really isn't. The history of the Beatles archives is more than enough for me to make my mind up about how they developed their marketability, for nothing more than profit.

They made a massive impact on the face of popular music around the world.

As have many many others, without the commercial support...

Say what you want about how Fela has become a sort of icon with the new play or whatever... but seriously... feth... the... BS... this dude is serious pancakes... SERIOUS. FETHING. PANCAKES.

@Wrexasaur - I actually AM a 'Music History Major', and you are wrong on all counts. Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin are only 'huge' retrospectively - Jimi wasn't a megastar in his day, however influential he is now. The levels of hysteria exhibited at beatles gigs was completely unprecedented at the time. In that respect they did change Popular Music forever, even if you disregard the revolutionary nature of their songwriting abilities.

So you have seen an unsigned band that is better than the Beatles? Send me a link to their myspace page - I would be interested to listen to them.

Influence is pretty hard to quantify though; in my experience a lot of bands when asked for their 'influences' just pull a list of popular artists out of their head. The Beatles were a popular band so they come up a lot.

I think their experimentation in the studio along with longer play times was more down to their increased drug intake at the time. Bands like the Rolling Stones were doing the same thing as the Beatles; taking differing musical techniques and making them fit with their own style. I just think the Stones did it better!

I think the only real conclusion we can draw is that the British make the best music

p.s. I don't think it's been 'hip' to downplay the Beatles for about 30+years.

The Beatles were no more influential that any other Pop sensation in their time.

Incorrect. Name me three more influential bands than the Beatles.

As they were a group, which was developed into a specific marketing tool, and ultimately destroyed Jazz as a mainstream culture;

Just ridiculously incorrect. Psychadelic pop revitalised Jazz - this is due in no small part to the primacy of The Beatles.

As have many many others, without the commercial support...

Such as...


And then you go and post a Fela Kuti video. Yep, you're one of those people who tries to be hip by downplaying The Beatles.

Albatross wrote:@Wrexasaur - I actually AM a 'Music History Major', and you are wrong on all counts. Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin are only 'huge' retrospectively - Jimi wasn't a megastar in his day, however influential he is now.

If we could look at the money behind the Beatles, I am sure that we could compare the reason for all of that. It really doesn't matter, retrospect or not, Jimi has a larger following now, than the Beatles do; if they actually have any at all for that matter. In terms of the Beatles archive, in it's entirety, it's obvious worth outweighs an artist like Joplin's work, for obvious reasons. If we can quantify any of this into actual terms, I am sure we could have a real debate/conversation about this; as it stands, I have heard this same conversation in the back of many, many record stores... so...

The levels of hysteria exhibited at beatles gigs was completely unprecedented at the time. In that respect they did change Popular Music forever, even if you disregard the revolutionary nature of their songwriting abilities.

AT. THE. TIME.

They, nor Jimi, nor Joplin, do any shows anymore, at all. I am quite sure that if you compared the amount of shows then to now, and look at the growth over time; the Beatles would really not look all that impressive, past their time.

So you have seen an unsigned band that is better than the Beatles? Send me a link to their myspace page - I would be interested to listen to them.

Myspace is so last year... . No, I can't, because as with most music, it is all based on taste. If you like what I like, but I simply disagree that it is the most epic of epic music of all time... there is absolutely nothing I can do to change that.

And then you go and post a Fela Kuti video. Yep, you're one of those people who tries to be hip by downplaying The Beatles.

And your a Music History Major? So the feth what?

Not unsigned, but little known.....


Like nothing else around at the moment

You really have no idea do you Wrex?

First Global superstars
First to use the studio as part of the process
Invented the music video
First band to open their own major production company

Those other groups seem similar but only because the Beatles did it first. It's like saying the Wright Brothers didn't do anything special because we have planes in the air all the time. This isn't even taking into to account the number of musicians they have influenced. It was a huge sea-change in the music world and the way artists saw themselves and what they could do and what the industry saw that they could market.

For a band that "isn't really anything special", it sure seems odd that the The Beatles 1 (2000) was the highest selling record of this decade, 39 years after the band broke-up. It was also it was also the fastest selling album of all-time, the most #1 spots simultaneously around the globe, 35 countries at the same time. They are the only band/artist to have the best selling album in 2 decades: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was the best selling album of the 60's and 1 in this decade.

Jimi Hendrix is SO not more popular than The Beatles.... are you fething winding me up? It hard to tell with you sometimes Wrex!
My point about the hysteria thing is that pop as we would recognise it today didn't really exist before The Beatles - whether you think they are the greatest band ever is irrelevant - to say that Beatles are 'no big deal' is just daft.

Don't go throwing around sales figures as if they are an indication of how good a band is. You'll only end up comparing The Beatles to TakeThat.

Didn't The Animals make the first 'music video'? Or was it Serge Gainsbourg messing about in the 60's? I'm not entirely sure but i'm pretty certain The Beatles didn't invent the music video.

Albatross wrote:Jimi Hendrix is SO not more popular than The Beatles.... are you fething winding me up? It hard to tell with you sometimes Wrex!
My point about the hysteria thing is that pop as we would recognise it today didn't really exist before The Beatles - whether you think they are the greatest band ever is irrelevant - to say that Beatles are 'no big deal' is just daft.

Then I am absolutely daft, because they strike me (in this day and age), as nothing more than a 'precursor' to all of the Pop I see now. I really don't care that I don't have much of a clue about any of this, I will still occasionally listen to the beatles, and I will still occasionally avoid all lady Gaga songs with a vengeance... as I am sure to avoid the next pop icon to cruise by me at high speeds.

It depends on what you class as a 'music video' - early examples of that media date back to the 20s, with certain blues artists.
I'm not trying to say 'everyone should like the Beatles' - but it's just not true to say they didn't change music forever.

@J.Black - Good video - not a million miles away from Mumford And Sons, though . And not as good as the Beatles .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Wrex - Fair enough, that's your opinion. But 'Tomorrow Never Knows' would still go down well in most dance clubs today. It was released in 1966.

Albatross wrote:
@Wrex - Fair enough, that's your opinion. But 'Tomorrow Never Knows' would still go down well in most dance clubs today. It was released in 1966.

That is by far, one of their more solid pieces. Don't get me wrong, they have other good stuff, but it is mostly sappy nonsense; not inspirational and rather mysterious.




All I am saying, is that if the Beatles are the place where the birth of our current form of pop took place... well... I could honestly have done without them... The Yellow Submarine will always be a classic watch though, almost as enjoyable as Fantastic Planet.

Had to look Mumford and sons up :S 6 months out of the music scene and all my knowledge has gone to pot! (not literally )

I used to play Pink Floyds' 'One of these days' quite regularly when i was djing; got so many people coming up to ask who it was by.

Back OT: The Beatles (and JL) were another step in the ongoing evolution of music. They came about thanks to Buddy Holly and Bo Diddley, and gave birth to Jimi and Clapton to name but a few. Let us hope this process continues without more people being shot in the back 5 times. Amen.

Mushy enough for y'all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Don't get me wrong, they have other good stuff, but it is mostly sappy nonsense; not inspirational and rather mysterious.

Yeah, I can't see them catching on, to be honest.


/atomic facepalm

Albatross wrote:It depends on what you class as a 'music video' - early examples of that media date back to the 20s, with certain blues artists.
I'm not trying to say 'everyone should like the Beatles' - but it's just not true to say they didn't change music forever.

@J.Black - Good video - not a million miles away from Mumford And Sons, though . And not as good as the Beatles .

Not music being videoed but purposefully coordinating video to go with music. The Bealtes couldn't be everywhere at once to do live shows (like Ed Sullivan) so they made little videos to send to shows so they didn't have to be there. So I suppose they also changed that dynamic of the artist not having to do live performances. I was unclear in the statement. They invented a certain type of videotaped music performance which has become the norm now. I'm not meaning that they were the first to ever be filmed playing music.

The Beatles' films also anticipated the music video, the essential promotional tool of later popular musicians. In fact, the Beatles themselves began filming promotional music videos for their songs in the early 1960s, mainly because they wanted to send them to television programs so they wouldn't have to appear in person. (George Harrison of the Beatles and Michael Nesmith of The Monkees went on to become pioneering music video directors.)

Which also reminds me, they were the first to be satellite broadcast around the world with "All You Need is Love". First time in history that everyone all over the world could be watching the same thing at the same time. It was watched by 400 million humans at the same time.

@Wrex - They influenced more than just pop music. They influenced just about everyone. Jimi Hendrix covered their music and said he was one of their biggest fans but I would call him pop music, just as one example. Jay-Z's the Black Album was inspired by the Beatles White Album. Try finding DJ Dangermouse's the Grey Album that was a mash of the two. Even today it still asked of current bands whether they will be the new Beatles or not.They also influenced the language of music.

In the studio, The Beatles were always experimenting with new recording techniques and even coined a few common studio phrases that are still in use today. For example, a common vocal or guitar effect where two copies of the same sound are overlapped and time-shifted slightly (producing a swirling, swishing sound), is now known as flanging, thanks to John Lennon who nicknamed the effect in the 1960s.

J.Black wrote:Back OT: The Beatles (and JL) were another step in the ongoing evolution of music. They came about thanks to Buddy Holly and Bo Diddley, and gave birth to Jimi and Clapton to name but a few. Let us hope this process continues without more people being shot in the back 5 times. Amen.

Mushy enough for y'all?

As long as that process brings me enjoyable music, I support that sentiment. They were clearly a step in the process (and I would not attribute them to everything that Albatross does) of developing 'current music'. That in itself was a major accomplishment, but it is basically no more important than any other step that has been taken along the way.

Ahtman wrote:@Wrex - No one is saying anyone has to like them. There is a difference though between enjoying a band and understanding what they have done. I'm not a big Elvis fan but I wouldn't say he was just some guy and that he didn't really do anything.

Refer to my response above, I don't think I was entirely clear about my opinion.

@Ahtman - The blues video thing is similar - they would construct little narratives (with sets/actors etc) and have people performing in them. They were shown in cinemas. I'll see if I can find an example.

Ah, here's one from Mamie Smith:

Ahtman wrote:It was watched by 400 million humans at the same time.

And the international IQ has been shrinking since the 60's. Correlation? j/k

I can't for the life of me remember his name, but there was a chap in the 60's who worked for the Beatles in some respect who was a massive advocate of experimental techniques as regards video. I think he was a director of fairly surreal short films who took his ideas and applied them to the Beatles music. I guess he could be the pioneer of alternative music videos; not sure the actual band members did much more than dress for the occasion.

Well poo, after editing everyone had already posted again.

That's a fething GREAT tune. Nice job, Ahtman.

That wasn't.

It is a tribute in case you were wondering....

Agree with Albatross and Ahtman.

If I remember Wrex' contributions to this thread for any length of time, they will encourage me to immediately dismiss any comments he makes on music.

Dude- do you see a Jimi Hendrix Rockband out there? Or even Jimi Hendrix Guitar Hero?

endless wrote:How is Chapman pathetic and Lennon not. At least Chapman took responsibility for his behavior.

Hey you know, im not even massively into his music, or the Beatles or any of that Jazz. In fact, i think Lennon was a tad ecotistical and a bit annoying, but come on..

That statement is ridiculous. I certainly doubt you will find many humans who havent formally unplugged from reality that will agree with you that Lennon was "pathetic" and Chapman "took responsibility for his behaviour"

Oh, Lennon was a massive egotist. So is Bob Dylan. So was Marvin Gaye. So was Jeff Buckley. And Van Morrison.

What do these people have in common?


They are all very talented.

I prefer "they all piss me off"

Can turn a tune though, i like a bit of Dylan.

They all had enough drugs in their system to heal the sick just by touching them or give you contact buzz by shaking your hand?

It's always a shame when someone dies for no apparent reason, though I'm no fan of the Beatles so I too have never understood the hype. Beatles were more popular than Zeppelin and The Doors but I don't own a single Beatles album but do have every Zeppelin album ever publicly released (some on vinyl, some on CD).