The Beatles are irrelevant

124»

Comments

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Varied or not, I've not liked the shape of the sound of any I've heard. There comes a point where you conclude you don't like a genre, even if you'd not sampled every example of it. It's like beer; I don't expect everyone to try every beer on the market before concluding they don't like beer; they have something in common and if that thing is something you don't like, you won't like any of them. So it is with me and the hip-hop genre.
    Beer has a common, underlying tone. Hip hop less so, at least to my ears.
  • LeRoc wrote: »
    Colin Smith's definition of influence is stupid.

    This. I look at all the books on my shelves, at all the titles by my favourite authors, but apparently because I don't write like any of them or slavishly parody their work, I'm not in the slightest bit influenced by them. That's just bollocks.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Not only do current bands cite the Beatles as an influence. A number of them who don't cite bands that cite the Beatles as an influence.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited August 2019
    Octopus' Garden.

    A song which actually highlights one of the biggest problems I have with the Beatles - the way they criminally marginalised George Harrison. That opening riff is amazing, and what's it used for? A comedy song sung by Ringo Fucking Starr.

    If the Beatles had let Harrison write more songs per album they'd have been an even better band than they were. The man was a legit musical genius. If you don't believe me then just listen - properly listen - to the guitar work on Abbey Road.

    TBF, Ringo by aforementioned Fucking Star is probably the best Beatle solo album by a country mile. I'm sure the fact that all the other Beatles were involved plus other stellar guests was purely co-incidental.

    As for the whole influencer argument, I'm pretty sure that anyone involved in music at that time was influenced by the Beatles - even if it was negatively in terms of "Whatever I want to be as a musician, it's not that". :mrgreen: If Eminem can manage to have heard of - and sample - Chas and Dave, all bets are off.
  • Besides, the OP was about relevance rather than influence. And I'd say that if a band has just had a summer blockbuster movie dedicated to their music then they still have relevance in today's society.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Varied or not, I've not liked the shape of the sound of any I've heard. There comes a point where you conclude you don't like a genre, even if you'd not sampled every example of it. It's like beer; I don't expect everyone to try every beer on the market before concluding they don't like beer; they have something in common and if that thing is something you don't like, you won't like any of them. So it is with me and the hip-hop genre.
    Beer has a common, underlying tone. Hip hop less so, at least to my ears.
    `What!' cried Bilbo. 'You can't tell which parts were mine, and which were the Dúnadan's?'

    'It is not easy for us to tell the difference between two mortals' said the Elf.

    'Nonsense, Lindir,' snorted Bilbo. 'If you can't distinguish between a Man and a Hobbit, your judgement is poorer than I imagined. They're as different as peas and apples.'

    'Maybe. To sheep other sheep no doubt appear different,' laughed Lindir. `Or to shepherds. But Mortals have not been our study. We have other business.'
  • IMO their music went in the crapper when Paul died.

    AFF
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    On a side note, I'm not glad he's dead or anything, but can you imagine how annoying John Lennon would have been the past 30 years?
  • IMO their music went in the crapper when Paul died.

    AFF

    Nonsense. Paul died in 1966, and Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road followed that, two of Paul's greatest works as bandleader. If the Beatles died when Paul died, they resurrected far better than before.
  • Not Henry IV. The Beatles had an influence on subsequent music more like Henri VIII.
  • Henry VIII had an influence on music?

    Well, he did write 'Pastime in good companie' and some believe he wrote 'Greensleeves.'

    Did he do covers?

    I've heard that people were losing their heads at his gigs ...
  • Thank you, GG, for your attempt, however lame, to lighten the mood.
  • None of your baby arguments light my fire. You need to open your minds to the doors of perception. Nothing in music was the same after Jim died.

    In other news, glad Woodstock II has been called off. None of the current crop of musicians are going to love anyone out of anything.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    There was a Woodstock II in 94 and a third in 1999. As I recall, that one did not go very well. Anyway from what I’ve seen of the original Woodstock much of the music was pretty bad.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    IMO their music went in the crapper when Paul died.

    AFF

    Nonsense. Paul died in 1966, and Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road followed that, two of Paul's greatest works as bandleader. If the Beatles died when Paul died, they resurrected far better than before.

    IMO means in my opinion.

    You have yours and I have mine.

    Since he died, IN MY OPINION, Paul hasn't been able to write a grocery list let alone a piece of music that wasn't pure schmaltz. Proof that he is dead, because in heaven, it all sounds like Paul's treacly post mortem dreck.

    AFF
  • That’s because you haven’t listened to “Simply Having a Wonderful Christmastime” on repeat enough times to plumb its rich and hidden depths.
  • That’s because you haven’t listened to “Simply Having a Wonderful Christmastime” on repeat enough times to plumb its rich and hidden depths.

    Cruel and unusual punishment. Please, waterboard me instead.
  • balaambalaam Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Yeah, no one listens to the Beatles anymore. I can't even name a single song.

    Sarcasm or serious, please? Thx.

    I'm just kidding. My friends and I are actually starting an apocalyptic death cult based on the lyrics of Octopus' Garden.

    [not worthy emoticon goes here}
  • mt--
    mousethief wrote: »
    Not Henry IV. The Beatles had an influence on subsequent music more like Henri VIII.

    Darn it, mt--you got to this before I did. ;) "Henry the VIIIth", as performed by Peter Noone and Herman's Hermits, is lots of fun. So the kings of England AND pop music, to those who said they didn't go together!
  • That’s because you haven’t listened to “Simply Having a Wonderful Christmastime” on repeat enough times to plumb its rich and hidden depths.

    Maybe I was wrong. Maybe that's hell.

    AFF
  • Blimey. Why does it matter?
  • The Rogue wrote: »
    Blimey. Why does it matter?

    When people feel like nobody is paying attention to them, they trot out some unpopular and tactless opinion to refocus attention on themselves. See: Donald Trump.
  • I thought the Beatles were just something for my twelve years younger sister to go crazy over until I heard Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, and Lucy in the Sky ...

    Whoa! I told myself. There's really something there.

    And then came Sgt. Pepper, and WHOA! There's REALLY REALLY something there!
    Some say their very greatest song is A Day in the Life.
    ________

    Bob Dylan got the Noble Prize for Literature -- deservedly, I guess.
    But I recently heard a radio show in which it was claimed that he himself once said that he was a nothing, a nichts, a zero compared to -- Leonard Cohen. Hmmmm.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    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.

    Just discovered this:
    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.

    A capital one.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    How do we define the music of the Beatles other than it was released by them. Their styles vary lot. From “Love Me Do” through “Elenor Rigby” to “ Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, (not necessarily in chronological order), they were so varied they could influence anyone
  • This thread inspired me to re-listen to the Beatles for the first time in a long time. I can be perversely contrarian about a lot of pop culture but the Beatles is one place where the masses were right. They are divine.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    How do we define the music of the Beatles other than it was released by them. Their styles vary lot. From “Love Me Do” through “Elenor Rigby” to “ Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, (not necessarily in chronological order), they were so varied they could influence anyone
    That is missing the forest for the trees. The Beatles, in part, influenced because they were so varied. They not only stayed relevant, they defined relevance for a longer period than any other group.
  • That should read influential, not influenced. Doh!
  • Apparently they are relevant as a traffic nuisance for the long-suffering users of Abbey Road...
  • I heard, on a long-ago travel show, that many tourists confuse another particular intersection with the real one--so there are problems at more than one place.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Apparently they are relevant as a traffic nuisance for the long-suffering users of Abbey Road...

    Freaking BBC and their bizarre use of scare-quotes.
This discussion has been closed.