Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by Ribsspare, Jan 21, 2019.
And you are an old fart with outdated old musical tastes
They should have stayed in America. We didn't need them back.
One could say we're both products of our generation
My parents showed me tons of their music, I just leaned toward Springsteen, Lou Reed, Zep, Kinks, etc., I'm not a totally hopeless kid!
And FWIW, saying the Beatles were the greatest band ever is like saying Aristotle is the greatest scientist ever
I got a problem with hip hop, but I assume you love the crap.
No one has to like the Beatles, everyone is entitled to their personal tastes. But anyone who dismisses them as merely a boyband does not understand music or popular culture as a whole. It is impossible to over emphasize the influence the Beatles, and for that sake Elvis, had on both society and music.
Aristotle wasn’t a scientist.
I rest my case.
Lay back on the table. The needle in your arm is part of your treatment. The drip will be increased. We'll expect to hear more from you soon.
It's all starting to make sense now.
I hate Beethoven, but for me to say he’s overrated and sucks?
What are you guys smoking?
Oh indeed he was, he just wasn't all that good at it, giving us gems like F=mv. He was just pretty good cause no one else had done any of it yet.
They cured cancer, ended the Vietnam war , and had such a great impact on music that they actually warped time and influenced the people that came before them .
And, of course, they will be remembered 1,000 years from now.
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard stuff like that, I’d live in Paul’s building on Central Park West.
Next up in 2019 : the 50th anniversary box set of Abbey Road.
Then in 2020 : the 50th Anniversary of The Break Up - including unseen depositions , lawyer’s notes , and demos of the mostly so-so solo music soon to come...
I got some work to do on the computer now. Will be back later.
I generally go with the assessment that The Beatles were pretty much bubblegum pop....at first.
It wasn't until "Revolver" that they started to get serious.
The staggering genius of Sir George Martin's production and arranging cannot be overstated. Without him, the Beatles wouldn't have been half of what they were.
You can deny their abilities or their perceived value all you like, but to dispute the fact that The Beatles irretrievably changed the way popular music was written, performed, and recorded is simply ignorant.
Whether they changed it for good or ill is up to you.
Regardless, everyone from the Ramones, to Nirvana, to Justin Bieber owes some part of their success to them.
I personally find myself enjoying each of their individual post-Beatles efforts more. George especially.
....too much Everly Brothers there".???....man, you lost me right there.
The Beatles WERE heavily influenced by Buddy Holly, Everly Brothers, Little Richard, and MANY others....then they condensed everything down to an almost perfect blend of music and exuberance imaginable.
And Blowtorch.....I've liked, respected, and supported many of your posts and opinions.....but you're just WRONG here!
I'm barely old enough to remember that their hair was considered "shocking," and their shoes were too pointy. But I suspect that they were considered the most commercially-viable of the British Invasion acts (in the US, anyway), and most of their notoriety here sprung from that. So they get the credit for changing the landscape of rock'n'roll music, setting it on a course to become "rock," a simpler name for a genre with a greater scope of styles.
All of the Beatles were/are extremely talented musicians (yes, even Ringo. Maybe especially Ringo), but whether that accounts for their leadership role, or whether their fame allowed them to develop into their leadership role, I don't know enough to say. But they, and the British Invasion, are what made the concept of "band" the core of popular music instead of a "singer" or "singing group."
Depends on your parameters my friend. Aristotle lived more than two thousand years ago. If there is just one so-called scientist today who gets at least close to Aristotle's insight, power of deduction, analytical capacity and ability to fuse many diverse fields, I would be extremely surprised. Aristotle is surely among the golden intellects of mankind, and will always be regardless of time or "scientific development".
The Beatles were "the greatest" band ever? Depends. What is greatest? The most influential? Maybe yes. The best selling? Maybe yes. Extremely good musicians and performers? Maybe not. A bunch of very creative and hard working dudes? Maybe yes. Terms like "greatest" or "best" are too simplistic.
What's to hate about Beethoven?
Or the Beatles, or Beiber for that matter (other than their fans)?
I certainly do not hate the Beatles, I just am aware of how overrated they are, and how they killed rock n roll
That's my point, he was extraordinary because he was indeed highly intellectual, but also just cause no one else was recording the science they might have been doing. Again, he was wrong, a lot (analogous to The Beatles being capable of writing really bad music ). I give him all the credit for doing the work, but there are many scientists after him who were more connected to the universe and proved it, and yes he set the stage for them.
Ira7 said they were the greatest earlier, so I was trolling him a bit But my point still stands (I think): being first doesn't make you the best, but merely a game-changer. Your final point seems right in stride with that my friend!
Dude you are killing it today! I'm not worthy!
I agree. They are much better explained and enjoyed by just listening to their music, and not listening to people talk "yay or nay" about the Beatles.