Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by Ribsspare, Jan 21, 2019.
that they were
If Aristotle is the Beatles, and Kant is like the King of Pop, I would put Hegel closer to Beyoncé than Madonna. Mainly because of Lemonade.
Any of my bands
Having endured the Beatles since their first TV appearances, way before Ed Sullivan, I have actively avoided them ever since. Now, the Kinks...
So how you gonna prove it?
Hmm, I think this would be the point where the argument crossed over to being just contradiction.
Few working and successful musicians don't credit The Beatles as influences. One of the biggest rock bands in the world at the height of their success was often criticized for stealing Beatles riffs. The books that have been written about them could fill a wall. Bands have attempted to cover entire Beatles albums, not just songs. Music programs will dedicate an entire class to studying their compositions. They have had documentaries and movies made about them as a band and as individuals. There's enough significant material produced about them that there is actually such a thing as a Beatles historian.
If the OP were to accept your premise, which seems to be heavily influenced by some personal injury, his kids would eventually stumble onto a huge cache of media directly contradicting what they've been told by dear old dad and they'd quickly decide that there really are two kinds of people. Experts, and dad.
I dunno, pistols at dawn?
How does one prove something like underratedness?
Anyway I'm okay with toiling away in obscurity. I'm ahead of my time
None of that even approaches disproving the plain truth of beatles over-ratedness.
See, the beatles are given more credit than any band deserves, and beatles music is given more credit than music itself deserves
Is there music that is “better” than other music ?
I don’t think there is.
I think there’s just music you like and music I like.*
The vast majority of hardcore Beatles fans however, start (and usually end) their entire theses on the Beatles with “their music is better than any other music”.
But - why is it so important to them to continually restate that ?
* I can explain why that is so in a couple sentences but it’s not important here.
That is THE question...
Not contentious at all! We're digressing in this thread but I dig it anyway.
It's interesting because physics and philosophy weren't different things in his time, you could only study both as a single field in their time. This drives home the point you made, at least to me.
Isaac Newton is my vote for a guy who is fascinating to read because of his outstanding insight. Of course he was around much later, but he more so than any other scientist ushered us into the age of modern science. That's just my $0.02 as a physics guy
With Aristotle and the Beatles I was just trying to draw the analogy that being revolutionary doesn't mean you're the "greatest" at something, again just to troll our friend Ira7. It was a facile choice but I still kinda like it haha. I think the trend you mention is coming from people judging his work in the regime of physics alone, and judging it rather critically. The best example is that he essentially performs a thought experiment to arrive at F=mv then never bothers to conduct an experiment to confirm it, which he could have done. He just asserted this as true then got everything else wrong downstream. To our modern minds this often clouds the other prolific work he did.
So for my Beatles analogy that would be like saying they suck because they wrote "Yellow Submarine." Context and body of work shred my comparison to pieces haha!
aren't one of those Beatles guys the one Kanye West discovered? tell em that lol
I suppose it would depend on my audience.
Your argument would also imply that they aren't overrated then, since no music is better than other music.
Some of you guys remind me of the solid state guitar aficionados who seem offended that a large group of guitarists like tube amps more. Silly.
I'm offended by the guys who like tube amps more and insist that anyone who doesn't is simply ignorant or stupid or a troll or some combination of all of those
Same with the beatles superfans
I don’t think they’re overrated. But I’ll say right now what I said years ago on this forum - and got enormous amounts of flack for stating :
”Yes - the Beatles were geniuses and their music was important. But - I never need to hear another note of it as long as I live .”
That was problematic for a sh*t ton of folks.
It seems more like the fanboys seem offended by those who are not. It's all a matter of perspective.
The Beatles music in enjoyed by many generations now. It has made a strong connection with many people, even if at the time of release you didn't think much of a particular song it can still bring about a strong reaction when hearing it today. It reminds you of the old days or of certain people you had in your life at that time but may be gone now. It's a very powerful thing, especially when performed live. I watched a few youtube videos of live McCartney about a year ago and certain songs had me tearing up even though I might not have thought those songs were so great back in the day.
If one finds themselves attempting to prove that something is overrated, that's usually because it is commonly held to be highly rated in the first place. If you want to prove the Beatles are overrated, I'd wear a helmet in case the mountain of evidence against you comes crashing down.
The OP is trying to explain the cultural and musical context of the Beatles. So I guess he'd say they were a hugely influential rock band that created their very own genre of rock. Oh yeah, there's this dude in Wisconsin who dislikes them.