If that's all someone ever does, then sure. But I'll give any shipmate in the UK a pass for wanting a pressure release valve that doesn't involve Brexit or Boris Johnson.
OK, so music as Art. That makes the Beatles Thomas Kinkade.
Alright, your statement, is not opinion but incredible stupidity and/or ignorant. Kinkade took a very well know technique, applied it in a mediocre fashion with a very good business model. No one is making any money producing works influenced by his paintings.
The Beatles took their own influences in different directions and influenced many other creative people who took those those influences and not only created valued works, but in turn influenced others.
Thomas Kinkade was a single, stalk of bamboo, the Beatles are a freaking forest.
I think the Beatles are pretty great. Not my favorite band, not an object of worship, but they undoubtedly have some fine stuff. When it comes to overrated popular bands I would probably have to point at Cannibal Corpse. They are quite mediocre. There are dozens of death metal bands infinitely more interesting and compelling. But for some reason they are the closest thing death metal has to a mainstream success story.
Also I think it's a bit of a shame that the Cure won Rock n Roll Hall of Fame before Siouxsie and the Banshees. I like the Cure but Robert Smith was never as good a songwriter as Siouxsie Sioux or Steve Severin.
But who defines what is art? Different people's lives can be changed by all sorts. My definition of entertainment I guess is broad and includes having one's life wowed and humbled and awed and all sorts as one goes from the cradle to the grave. Art/entertainment gives us new perspectives, elevates our thinking from the mere mundane, etc., but it's all by the by, and our lives on earth are still finite. Arguing over which music is relevant seems to me like a self-important squabbling over whose interpretations are the most valid, whose taste is the most refined.
What other thing, after chocolate of course, is more important than art?
I love discussing music, even in an argumentative fashion. As long as all participants have a modicum of understanding and the ability to divorce like from merit. Whilst there is much irrelevant music, there are differing ways to view relevant musicians and a healthy discussion can open one new POV.
I have to admit I can't really get into Mozart. Actually I don't really like a lot of his contemporaries either- Haydn bores me. People I admire dig them though, so I don't claim to have any legitimate objection to them. I love Beethoven but I think he is usually classed in a later period. I guess I need music to be gloomy or tormented. Or have harpsichords.
When someone says "The Beatles are irrelevant", referencing a band that literally everybody has heard of even though it's nearly 50 years after they last performed together, I think we can safely say they are empirically wrong.
It's a question that is independent of whether they were good musicians, good songwriters, good performers: they were, and remain, relevant. And while I like talking about music almost as much as I like dancing about books or sculpting about photography, we have Heaven to do that in. Open a thread there, why don't you...
I'm reading topic this with interest - because I can never work out what actually defines music as "good" or "bad". Is it how popular something is? Or does it tick all the boxes in music theory (whatever they are)? Or the dexterity or showmanship of the performers? What exactly?
I always end up with simply music I like and music I don't.
As for the Beatles - I really like some (mainly around Sgt Pepper era), but really don't like the White album and I find the early stuff is OK-ish. And as mentioned they seemed to be much better as a group (or Lennon/McCartney song writing duo) than their solo work.
As for the Beatles - I really like some (mainly around Sgt Pepper era), but really don't like the White album and I find the early stuff is OK-ish. And as mentioned they seemed to be much better as a group (or Lennon/McCartney song writing duo) than their solo work.
Their partnership served as filter, focus, check and inspiration. By there solo careers, they were too famous and egotistical to brook much interference.
As I think has been pointed out several times already, “relevant” and “good” are not the same thing. You could argue that their music sucks but when you start a rant about how this band is widely worshipped yet irrelevant you defeat your own argument from the start.
I enjoy and have in my collection of 2000 albums music from every inhabited continent and dating from the 12th century to 2019 and not one of them is by The Beatles. It's hard to tell if their music is overrated so much as so over familiar it's no longer possible to judge if it's actually any good. Better music from that era was produced by Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, and The Velvet Underground.
Oddly, I listened to Dylan's Blonde On Blonde last evening and far from sounding fifty-three years old. It didn't seem dated at all. The Beatles, by contrast, have not dated well.
The Beatles are relevant to the history of popular music, but not, imo, relevant to where music is today.
I enjoy and have in my collection of 2000 albums music from every inhabited continent and dating from the 12th century to 2019 and not one of them is by The Beatles. It's hard to tell if their music is overrated so much as so over familiar it's no longer possible to judge if it's actually any good. Better music from that era was produced by Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, and The Velvet Underground.
Oddly, I listened to Dylan's Blonde On Blonde last evening and far from sounding fifty-three years old. It didn't seem dated at all. The Beatles, by contrast, have not dated well.
The Beatles are relevant to the history of popular music, but not, imo, relevant to where music is today.
Without the Beatles, music wouldn't be where it is today. Literally.
Influence is outside of a particular individual's Dope or Nope. Take the Velvet Underground, since you mention them. Everyone has heard of the Beatles. The Velvet Underground? Ask the average millennial and you'll get more crickets than anything else. And yet they, too, helped shaped contemporary music.
A more pertinent question would be: had the Velvet Underground heard of the Beatles? Had they listened to the Beatles? Did they own Beatles records? Had they sung along to them?
In which case, a band which Colin thinks are more influential than the Beatles was influenced by the Beatles.
Mozart? Facile. Pressed to start too young; pressured to produce too much; died too young; also (like the Beatles) very popular. Given another 15 years, a different cultural background, and a couple more tragedies to live through, might have achieved the gravitas of Bach. Alas, poor Mozart: doomed to remain forever a twinkly-tweedly lightweight.
The Beatles - everyone in music seems to worship them. But they are trivial anr irrelevant. Not worth it.
Something tells me you want a revolution, but after a hard day's night of fixing a hole in the glass onion of society I just need some help to get back to a place where I feel fine. Ask me why if you must, but in this helter skelter world that's going nowhere man I sometimes want to take a magical mystery tour along the long and winding road with a band that don't let me down.
Do you want to know a secret? Baby you're a rich man, but all the money in the world can't buy me love. When you're back in the USSR you can buy a ticket to ride, be a day tripper, drive my car and carry that weight from me to you. I want to hold your hand, but I don't want to spoil the party. I call your name, crying "Martha my dear, please please me honey pie, I've got to get you into my life". And I love her, but she doesn't get all my loving because there's Michelle and Julia and Anna and Maggie Mae and dear, dear Prudence (who once asked me "why don't we do it in the road?"), and even with a little help from my friends it's clear that I'm a loser. And while my guitar gently weeps, she's leaving home.
I'm so tired, and it won't be long before golden slumbers give way to good morning. Good morning, here comes the sun flying from me to you, here there and everywhere. Hello, Goodbye! Let's just let it be and come together, because all you need is love eight days a week. Each morning I pray "Lady Madonna, love me do", and she loves you too.
I thought I would start this in Hell because it will save time later.
The Beatles - everyone in music seems to worship them. But they are trivial anr irrelevant. Not worth it.
People say "They changed musical history". Did they? No, music was changing, and they happened to be the right people in the right place at the right time. That is all - they were lucky. Luck plays a much bigger part in musical success than talent ever has.
"But what about all their songs?" Well Simon and Garfunkel produced better songs, IMO (I know, mostly Paul, but they were often written for them both. Unlike the Beatles who wrote songs for themselves to sing). And there have been far better song writers since - many of them. None of whom have even considered The Frog Chorus to be a good move.
"But everyone is influenced by them." No they are not. This only works because they were the first contemporary music band, so any other has some direct line back to them. But that was just good fortune. If it hadn't been them, it would have been another band.
Hendrix changed the way people play guitar. He forced music out of his instrument. I would argue that at least 50% of bands as Glasto this year can only play like they do because of his respect for his music over his instrument.
Eno invented a new genre of music - ambient. Which influences swathes of other music - and his use of electronics to produce musicthat is not geeky impacted (IMO) pretty much all dance music as well as other electronica.
A more pertinent question would be: had the Velvet Underground heard of the Beatles? Had they listened to the Beatles? Did they own Beatles records? Had they sung along to them?
In which case, a band which Colin thinks are more influential than the Beatles was influenced by the Beatles.
The Velvet Underground never included any cover version on any of their studio albums, but there are a few recordings of the Velvet Underground playing cover versions on rehearsal tapes.
On this rehearsal tape, the VU plays the opening riff from the Beatles, Day Tripper, which then segues into an instrumental version of Boom Boom by John Lee Hooker.
Nah. 70s had Led Zeppelin; 80s had Def Leppard. Black Sabbath put the fear of God into 70s parents; by the 80s Motley Crue... didn't. And Deep Purple gave us Rainbow. Fortunately without Zippy but otherwise...
The Beatles are relevant to the history of popular music, but not, imo, relevant to where music is today.
Music is nowhere today.
Music today is really exciting. You just have to work a little harder to find it.
People say that, but wouldn't it be nice if they could help us lesser mortals by pointing to it, or are you only allowed to enjoy this exciting music if you found it for yourself? It's like some kind of musical Gnosticism.
I'm still waiting to hear what it means that the Beatles were the first contemporary music band. Because by all reasonable definitions of all the words, it's flat-out wrong in a spectacular way.
I'm still waiting for anything resembling a coherent argument that the Beatles were not one of the most influential groups of all time.
All we have so far is whinging about how people like other groups better.
Or to put it another way, far-out theories which cannot be disproved and which result in the same evidence as the going theory are eminently dismissable.
I'm still waiting to hear what it means that the Beatles were the first contemporary music band. Because by all reasonable definitions of all the words, it's flat-out wrong in a spectacular way.
And these alleged* earlier ones are...
[*clearly any suggestions we'll do my best to argue are non relevant for the sake of Boris distraction. Although obviously you have at least:
The Motown girl groups they covered
The big solo singers (Elvis&Cliff, they even toured for Shapiro) don't count but you do have the "and the ..."
Skiffle]
You can't give me alleged anything until you've defined what the term means. You could say "the first blaggamaggazig" and then proceed to mock various things when I ask you to say what "blaggamaggazig" means. That still won't define the term. What is a contemporary music band?
Given any reasonable definition of the word "contemporary", I'd say it's hard to define a band that split up half a century ago as such.
In terms of modern-style pop/rock bands it's hard to think of many that were truly influential and predate the Beatles. Bill Haley and the Comets deserve mention for Rock Around the Clock, but that's only one song (albeit a very important and genre-defining one). The Shadows influenced a great many future guitar legends, but as an instrumental band their influence on the genre as a whole must perforce be limited (though if you include Cliff Richard as part of the band rather than as a solo singer then their inclusion in this list is more justified).
There are obviously a number of solo performers who predate the Beatles and were unarguably influential, but we're talking about bands here.
So they wrote a lot of songs. What does that mean? Barbera Cartland wrote a lot of books.
It means that neither the Beatles nor Barbara Cartland are irrelevant, you tool.
Third best selling author of all time apparently ... Which is pretty horrific ...
Don't agree. Why is it horrific?
Snobbery, mostly.
I'd also like the the sickly sweet covers, soppy names and breathless writing style to be taken into consideration m'lud. I read a few when I worked in the library as they were so popular. Didn't get it at all. Just not my thing. Wherever I wanted to escape too, it certainly wasn't there.
Without the Beatles, music wouldn't be where it is today. Literally.
Influence is outside of a particular individual's Dope or Nope. Take the Velvet Underground, since you mention them. Everyone has heard of the Beatles. The Velvet Underground? Ask the average millennial and you'll get more crickets than anything else. And yet they, too, helped shaped contemporary music.
That's a bit like saying without Wat Tyler Britain wouldn't be where it is today. It's probably true that Britain wouldn't be where it is today without Tyler but there are so many other significant events and people it's odd to single any one of them out.
A more pertinent question would be: had the Velvet Underground heard of the Beatles? Had they listened to the Beatles? Did they own Beatles records? Had they sung along to them?
In which case, a band which Colin thinks are more influential than the Beatles was influenced by the Beatles.
The Velvet Underground never included any cover version on any of their studio albums, but there are a few recordings of the Velvet Underground playing cover versions on rehearsal tapes.
On this rehearsal tape, the VU plays the opening riff from the Beatles, Day Tripper, which then segues into an instrumental version of Boom Boom by John Lee Hooker.
I rest my case.
That The Velvet Underground played some cover versions of the Beatles does not mean they were influenced by the Beatles, or at least not especially influenced.
But even if they were it wouldn't mean that The Beatles are still relevant. The bands the Beatles influenced went on to influence other bands, and so on through the generations.
My great, great granddad had an influence on me, albeit at several stages removed, but since I never met him, can't name him, and don't know a damn thing about him, he's hardly relevant to my life now.
Comments
The Beatles took their own influences in different directions and influenced many other creative people who took those those influences and not only created valued works, but in turn influenced others.
Thomas Kinkade was a single, stalk of bamboo, the Beatles are a freaking forest.
Also I think it's a bit of a shame that the Cure won Rock n Roll Hall of Fame before Siouxsie and the Banshees. I like the Cure but Robert Smith was never as good a songwriter as Siouxsie Sioux or Steve Severin.
I love discussing music, even in an argumentative fashion. As long as all participants have a modicum of understanding and the ability to divorce like from merit. Whilst there is much irrelevant music, there are differing ways to view relevant musicians and a healthy discussion can open one new POV.
It's a question that is independent of whether they were good musicians, good songwriters, good performers: they were, and remain, relevant. And while I like talking about music almost as much as I like dancing about books or sculpting about photography, we have Heaven to do that in. Open a thread there, why don't you...
I always end up with simply music I like and music I don't.
As for the Beatles - I really like some (mainly around Sgt Pepper era), but really don't like the White album and I find the early stuff is OK-ish. And as mentioned they seemed to be much better as a group (or Lennon/McCartney song writing duo) than their solo work.
:unworthy: re your lyrics mashup!
Popularity is often ephemeral, so no.
This only determines whether something fits in a particular category.
Nothing exactly.
Adn this is the only criterion needed for listening.
Their partnership served as filter, focus, check and inspiration. By there solo careers, they were too famous and egotistical to brook much interference.
There are 59 Beatles song titles in there. I defy anyone who thinks the Beatles are irrelevant to do the same thing with a more "relevant" band.
So they wrote a lot of songs. What does that mean? Barbera Cartland wrote a lot of books.
It means that neither the Beatles nor Barbara Cartland are irrelevant, you tool.
Third best selling author of all time apparently ... Which is pretty horrific ...
I guess it depends on what you think books are for.
Don't agree. Why is it horrific?
Oddly, I listened to Dylan's Blonde On Blonde last evening and far from sounding fifty-three years old. It didn't seem dated at all. The Beatles, by contrast, have not dated well.
The Beatles are relevant to the history of popular music, but not, imo, relevant to where music is today.
Snobbery, mostly.
Homer Simpson
Considering the bands that were in their heyday then, he's probably not far wrong.
(Is she the one who dictated something like 3 books at once, while eating bon-bons?)
Music today is really exciting. You just have to work a little harder to find it.
Accepted!
Influence is outside of a particular individual's Dope or Nope. Take the Velvet Underground, since you mention them. Everyone has heard of the Beatles. The Velvet Underground? Ask the average millennial and you'll get more crickets than anything else. And yet they, too, helped shaped contemporary music.
In which case, a band which Colin thinks are more influential than the Beatles was influenced by the Beatles.
That's how you'd describe his Requiem eh?
Awesome yourself.
You're wrong.
Just discovered this:
I rest my case.
Nah. 70s had Led Zeppelin; 80s had Def Leppard. Black Sabbath put the fear of God into 70s parents; by the 80s Motley Crue... didn't. And Deep Purple gave us Rainbow. Fortunately without Zippy but otherwise...
tl;dr - you're wrong.
People say that, but wouldn't it be nice if they could help us lesser mortals by pointing to it, or are you only allowed to enjoy this exciting music if you found it for yourself? It's like some kind of musical Gnosticism.
All we have so far is whinging about how people like other groups better.
And these alleged* earlier ones are...
[*clearly any suggestions we'll do my best to argue are non relevant for the sake of Boris distraction. Although obviously you have at least:
The Motown girl groups they covered
The big solo singers (Elvis&Cliff, they even toured for Shapiro) don't count but you do have the "and the ..."
Skiffle]
Given any reasonable definition of the word "contemporary", I'd say it's hard to define a band that split up half a century ago as such.
In terms of modern-style pop/rock bands it's hard to think of many that were truly influential and predate the Beatles. Bill Haley and the Comets deserve mention for Rock Around the Clock, but that's only one song (albeit a very important and genre-defining one). The Shadows influenced a great many future guitar legends, but as an instrumental band their influence on the genre as a whole must perforce be limited (though if you include Cliff Richard as part of the band rather than as a solo singer then their inclusion in this list is more justified).
There are obviously a number of solo performers who predate the Beatles and were unarguably influential, but we're talking about bands here.
I'd also like the the sickly sweet covers, soppy names and breathless writing style to be taken into consideration m'lud. I read a few when I worked in the library as they were so popular. Didn't get it at all. Just not my thing. Wherever I wanted to escape too, it certainly wasn't there.
What? There's loads of great new music being released.
That's a bit like saying without Wat Tyler Britain wouldn't be where it is today. It's probably true that Britain wouldn't be where it is today without Tyler but there are so many other significant events and people it's odd to single any one of them out.
That The Velvet Underground played some cover versions of the Beatles does not mean they were influenced by the Beatles, or at least not especially influenced.
But even if they were it wouldn't mean that The Beatles are still relevant. The bands the Beatles influenced went on to influence other bands, and so on through the generations.
My great, great granddad had an influence on me, albeit at several stages removed, but since I never met him, can't name him, and don't know a damn thing about him, he's hardly relevant to my life now.