Interesting Take on the Beatles

General music discussion.
Jimmy Jazz
User avatar
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 1552
Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 6:40pm

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Jimmy Jazz »

unlike the Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead they didn't foster the hippie movement; unlike Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix they didn't further the myth of LSD;
These are bad things? His other complaint is laughable of their being "no drugs" in their songs. The fuck? And no violence in Beatles songs? Obviously never listened to Run For Your Life or Maxwell's Silver Hammer. And on "no vietnam, no politics" - I respect them more for not jumping on the bandwagon and making shit like that. I'm not a blind Beatles are god type person but the guy who wrote this article just doesn't understand anything at all. If I met him I'd give him a swift kick in the vagina.

Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 38356
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Heston »

What a load of bollocks, I gave up reading after a few paragraphs. The Beatles invented pop music as we know it, period.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115978
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Heston wrote:What a load of bollocks, I gave up reading after a few paragraphs. The Beatles invented pop music as we know it, period.
Which, he'd say, is why pop music sucks. We looked for crap, they gave us crap. :rolleyes:
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 38356
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Heston »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
Heston wrote:What a load of bollocks, I gave up reading after a few paragraphs. The Beatles invented pop music as we know it, period.
Which, he'd say, is why pop music sucks. We looked for crap, they gave us crap. :rolleyes:
He was using people like the Stones and the Who as a stick to beat the Beatles with. Both were undoubtably 'pop', and owed their existence to the Beatles.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

almo
User avatar
Dirty Punk
Posts: 59
Joined: 18 Jun 2008, 9:17pm

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by almo »

DrugProwlingWolf wrote:I liked that article a great deal, but only because I just can't fuckin' stand the Beatles.

Flex
User avatar
Mechano-Man of the Future
Posts: 35799
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
Location: The Information Superhighway!

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Flex »

Heston wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
Heston wrote:What a load of bollocks, I gave up reading after a few paragraphs. The Beatles invented pop music as we know it, period.
Which, he'd say, is why pop music sucks. We looked for crap, they gave us crap. :rolleyes:
He was using people like the Stones and the Who as a stick to beat the Beatles with. Both were undoubtably 'pop', and owed their existence to the Beatles.

See, this is where I part ways with some Beatles fans. The Rolling Stones and The Who were contemporaries with roots going back to before the Beatles existed (in terms of who was influencing them musically, how they met and started and decided what they wanted to play). All the bands influenced each other, sure, but saying that without the beatles there would be no Stones or Who is a pretty big leap to make.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead

Pex Lives!

threecoffins
User avatar
Sasquatch Determinator
Posts: 1734
Joined: 18 Jun 2008, 10:33am
Location: Toronto

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by threecoffins »

Flex wrote:
Heston wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
Heston wrote:What a load of bollocks, I gave up reading after a few paragraphs. The Beatles invented pop music as we know it, period.
Which, he'd say, is why pop music sucks. We looked for crap, they gave us crap. :rolleyes:
He was using people like the Stones and the Who as a stick to beat the Beatles with. Both were undoubtably 'pop', and owed their existence to the Beatles.

See, this is where I part ways with some Beatles fans. The Rolling Stones and The Who were contemporaries with roots going back to before the Beatles existed (in terms of who was influencing them musically, how they met and started and decided what they wanted to play). All the bands influenced each other, sure, but saying that without the beatles there would be no Stones or Who is a pretty big leap to make.
I agree, though I think those band owe a lot of their international success to the Beatles. The Beat boom was gonna happen regardless of the Beatles, but the Who and the Stones may not have captured the American imagination in quite the same way.

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115978
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Flex wrote:
Heston wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
Heston wrote:What a load of bollocks, I gave up reading after a few paragraphs. The Beatles invented pop music as we know it, period.
Which, he'd say, is why pop music sucks. We looked for crap, they gave us crap. :rolleyes:
He was using people like the Stones and the Who as a stick to beat the Beatles with. Both were undoubtably 'pop', and owed their existence to the Beatles.

See, this is where I part ways with some Beatles fans. The Rolling Stones and The Who were contemporaries with roots going back to before the Beatles existed (in terms of who was influencing them musically, how they met and started and decided what they wanted to play). All the bands influenced each other, sure, but saying that without the beatles there would be no Stones or Who is a pretty big leap to make.
A more defensible argument might be that if the Beatles hadn't cultivated the pop market and opened the eyes of more record execs, groups like the Stones or the Who might not have been signed (think of how the Pistols made every label think they needed a punk band).
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Flex
User avatar
Mechano-Man of the Future
Posts: 35799
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
Location: The Information Superhighway!

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Flex »

Dr. Medulla wrote:A more defensible argument might be that if the Beatles hadn't cultivated the pop market and opened the eyes of more record execs, groups like the Stones or the Who might not have been signed (think of how the Pistols made every label think they needed a punk band).
Well, they almost certainly would have been signed and recorded by at least a smaller label. I think the basic point though (which you and threecoffins are making), is that without the Beatles there is a very good chance modern rock may not have exploded into popularity like it has. There's a good chance of that, although Bob Dylan did at least much for rock n roll as the Beatles and he still would have been around so it's hard to say for sure one way or the other... but I'd agree with the assessment that without the Beatles "modern rock" would have remained a more underground phenomenon.

Addendum: that was unintentionally Joe Morganesque. What I mean is that I agree with the basic idea that without the Beatles modern rock wouldn't be what it is, but there are some other variables (like Bob Dylan) at play.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead

Pex Lives!

Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 38356
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Heston »

Flex wrote:without the Beatles there is a very good chance modern rock may not have exploded into popularity like it has.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

Flex
User avatar
Mechano-Man of the Future
Posts: 35799
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
Location: The Information Superhighway!

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Flex »

Heston wrote:
Flex wrote:without the Beatles there is a very good chance modern rock may not have exploded into popularity like it has.
What you just quoted doesn't support your point, which let's remember, is that without the Beatles the Rolling Stones and The Who would not have existed. We're saying there is a good chance they would not have been nearly as popular. You are saying that there is no way they would have ever even formed. Which is crazy, since they formed before they could have been meaningfully influenced by The Beatles.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead

Pex Lives!

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115978
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Dr. Medulla »

The Beatles embodied a lot of the trends going on around them, sometimes quite deliberately. They served, at least for awhile, as a focus for the next leap forward of rock in terms of its penetration into the general culture. It's important to remember that there wasn't as much choice and variety back then, and having faces and personalities like Elvis and the Beatles made the public more receptive to the new music. If there's no Elvis, does, say, Carl Perkins make the huge leap forward? If no Beatles, can the Stones conquer America? Hypothetical, of course, but you don't have to be a "great man" proponent to recognize that particular human beings can alter the historical equation.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Flex
User avatar
Mechano-Man of the Future
Posts: 35799
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
Location: The Information Superhighway!

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Flex »

Dr. Medulla wrote:The Beatles embodied a lot of the trends going on around them, sometimes quite deliberately. They served, at least for awhile, as a focus for the next leap forward of rock in terms of its penetration into the general culture. It's important to remember that there wasn't as much choice and variety back then, and having faces and personalities like Elvis and the Beatles made the public more receptive to the new music. If there's no Elvis, does, say, Carl Perkins make the huge leap forward? If no Beatles, can the Stones conquer America? Hypothetical, of course, but you don't have to be a "great man" proponent to recognize that particular human beings can alter the historical equation.
I think everyone, even the writer of that horrible article in a weird and perverse way, agrees with this.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead

Pex Lives!

Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 38356
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Heston »

Flex wrote:
Heston wrote:
Flex wrote:without the Beatles there is a very good chance modern rock may not have exploded into popularity like it has.
What you just quoted doesn't support your point, which let's remember, is that without the Beatles the Rolling Stones and The Who would not have existed. We're saying there is a good chance they would not have been nearly as popular. You are saying that there is no way they would have ever even formed. Which is crazy, since they formed before they could have been meaningfully influenced by The Beatles.
My two points were fully consistent with eachother.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115978
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Interesting Take on the Beatles

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Flex wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:The Beatles embodied a lot of the trends going on around them, sometimes quite deliberately. They served, at least for awhile, as a focus for the next leap forward of rock in terms of its penetration into the general culture. It's important to remember that there wasn't as much choice and variety back then, and having faces and personalities like Elvis and the Beatles made the public more receptive to the new music. If there's no Elvis, does, say, Carl Perkins make the huge leap forward? If no Beatles, can the Stones conquer America? Hypothetical, of course, but you don't have to be a "great man" proponent to recognize that particular human beings can alter the historical equation.
I think everyone, even the writer of that horrible article in a weird and perverse way, agrees with this.
Re-reading what I scribbled, yes, you're right. It's a matter of whether you regard it as a net positive or negative.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Post Reply