Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Regarding The Beatles

rainshadow
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 2:07:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Earlier I read a debate on whether the beatles would still shake the music scene if they came out today? and I would just like to state an opinion and hear yours as well.

Now, The Beatles we're not musicians who spent their time trying to be Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughn and some people assume that musicians who play guitar really good and sing in an over the top way makes the music they write good. The Beatles were very sensitive and emotional kids, putting on the record that both McCartney and Lennon's mother died when they we're both teenagers. They both expressed through words and melody the enormous pain they felt, and enormous joy they felt too. They observed life and expressed the extremes of it through music. I've noticed that people who judge The Beatles solely on their singing and guitar work and don't focus on their lyrics and music and what they are trying to say, are very shallow and emotionally inexperienced people. I've dealt with someone like that all my life, my brother who was extremely abusive and insensitive and with a personality alot like adolf hitler. Of course some people don't think The Beatles are as good as some bands nowadays and it's clear to me that they feel that way because they haven't been through what Paul McCartney and John Lennon have. They can't relate to the life they have lived, or they are just not fully emotionally developed people. These songs and this band was good because they weren't afraid of expression, and showing how they felt. Which frankly is what music is, which is expressing how you feel. You can't get the same amount of emotions out of the music by just singing over the top, or playing a skillful guitar lick as you can by pouring you're heart out into the music. Like Nirvana, there's people I know who tell me they're overrated, however the people that Nirvana attracts are people who have been through what Kurt Cobain has, people who have felt depression and have had problems with drugs and who have are manic-depressive like he was. The same goes with the Beatles, which is why they were and are still so popular, they could relate to the human condition, which most bands these days can't because the major record labels are controlled by people who know more about the stock market than they do about music, which are these young guns who haven't experienced much of life to really understand what makes music actually good. Heck, Kurt Cobain killed himself because of how shallow and twisted the music industry was getting, and how they were controlled by the wrong kind of people. Greedy, shallow people who signed bands that were at their own emotional level; which is very low. Theses record industry executives are greedy because they do things the cheap way, using voice tuners and make artists and write shallow songs for them to sing without thought and put 50 artists on their label and disregard quality and don't care about the artform and start to make it into a pure entertainment business. If you wait till you grow up and actually experience life as these people did you'll actually feel that they we're better than any other rock n' roll band. Then you'll judge if The Beatles would shake the music scene if they came out today and you'd say yes, although only if the record labels weren't so crappy, a great musical group like them wouldn't even make it nowadays.

I believe The Beatles wouldn't shake the music scene today, not because they aren't what I said they were, but because the music scene is for people who haven't entirely been where John, Paul, or Kurt have been, which some people don't understand and can't relate to till their 40 or even till the age 80. Teen pop stars who sing about shallow things, in an over the top way and even the older artists aren't as provocative as the music that evolved from the 50's and 60's. The hey day of rock n' roll was the 50's and 60's, now they have something called rock. Modern music is stuff to listen to while working out or going through your morning routine, mindless words, and drunken riddles that may sound cool to the ear, but don't ever ring as true to the heart as it used to.
Princess
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 6:03:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The music industry has always been more about the image than the sound. It is not so much about the talent of the musicians, but more how they are advertised and marketed to the masses.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2009 11:22:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 6:03:33 PM, Princess wrote:
The music industry has always been more about the image than the sound. It is not so much about the talent of the musicians, but more how they are advertised and marketed to the masses.

I wouldn't say always.

In recent times, that has become predominant, but I blame the consumptive masses as much as the media corporations for buying into it. Music is an ancient art, it existed long before corporations.

There are musicians not in the corporate limelight, and they actually aren't that hard to find if you go looking for independent artists -- they just aren't advertised to you. That is, you must look for them; they have not the means to look for everyone.
theitalianstallion
Posts: 1,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2009 7:27:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's impossible to know what the music industry would be like today without The Beatles; they influenced so many. Taking them out of the 1960s and placing them in the modern day would have a more widespread impact than you seem to think.

We'll never know where music would've gone without The Beatles. There may not have ever been a Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Kiss, AC/DC, Ten Years After, etc without them; there may be have been. We'll just never know.
When Reach fell, I came.
theitalianstallion
Posts: 1,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2009 7:29:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/7/2009 7:27:23 AM, theitalianstallion wrote:
It's impossible to know what the music industry would be like today without The Beatles; they influenced so many. Taking them out of the 1960s and placing them in the modern day would have a more widespread impact than you seem to think.

We'll never know where music would've gone without The Beatles. There may not have ever been a Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Kiss, AC/DC, Ten Years After, etc without them; there may be have been. We'll just never know.

My bad, forgot to finish.

But if you're saying that if today's music was the same without the Beatles and then The Beatles tried to make it today, I don't think it would happen. The Beatles would probably end up like the Wiggles or something.
When Reach fell, I came.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2009 8:37:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/7/2009 7:27:23 AM, theitalianstallion wrote:

We'll never know where music would've gone without The Beatles. There may not have ever been a Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Kiss, AC/DC, Ten Years After, etc without them; there may be have been. We'll just never know.

Oops, you included the Rolling Stones as being influenced by the Beatles, despite the fact that they formed around the same time (1960 and 1962 respectively) and came to America around the same time (1964). I would even go so far as to say those bands you mentioned were more influenced by the Stones than they were by the Beatles (who were quite a bit more pop than they were rock).
theitalianstallion
Posts: 1,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2009 10:10:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/7/2009 8:37:18 AM, JBlake wrote:

Oops, you included the Rolling Stones as being influenced by the Beatles, despite the fact that they formed around the same time (1960 and 1962 respectively) and came to America around the same time (1964). I would even go so far as to say those bands you mentioned were more influenced by the Stones than they were by the Beatles (who were quite a bit more pop than they were rock).

Yeah. I realized that as I read over it again once it was posted. And you're probably right about the bands I listed being more influenced by the Rolling Stones than the Beatles. I was just trying to put how important the Beatles were, and still are, to popular music into perspective.
When Reach fell, I came.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2009 7:38:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/7/2009 10:10:49 AM, theitalianstallion wrote:
At 8/7/2009 8:37:18 AM, JBlake wrote:

Oops, you included the Rolling Stones as being influenced by the Beatles, despite the fact that they formed around the same time (1960 and 1962 respectively) and came to America around the same time (1964). I would even go so far as to say those bands you mentioned were more influenced by the Stones than they were by the Beatles (who were quite a bit more pop than they were rock).

Yeah. I realized that as I read over it again once it was posted. And you're probably right about the bands I listed being more influenced by the Rolling Stones than the Beatles. I was just trying to put how important the Beatles were, and still are, to popular music into perspective.

In the early sixties the Stones were performing textbook covers of Blues tunes while the Beatles were creating pop music. There's less comparison than you think.
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2009 8:00:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/7/2009 8:37:18 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/7/2009 7:27:23 AM, theitalianstallion wrote:

We'll never know where music would've gone without The Beatles. There may not have ever been a Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Kiss, AC/DC, Ten Years After, etc without them; there may be have been. We'll just never know.

Oops, you included the Rolling Stones as being influenced by the Beatles, despite the fact that they formed around the same time (1960 and 1962 respectively) and came to America around the same time (1964). I would even go so far as to say those bands you mentioned were more influenced by the Stones than they were by the Beatles (who were quite a bit more pop than they were rock).

I definitely cannot hear even the slightest amount of Rolling Stones influence in Pink Floyd's music. I can hear some Beatles influence, though (See Emily Play.)

With Led Zeppelin, the impression I've gotten is that their influences were more obscure than the Rolling Stones -- if anything, both bands shared influences...but influencing each other? I'm not sure.
theitalianstallion
Posts: 1,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2009 2:09:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/7/2009 8:00:22 PM, patsox834 wrote:

With Led Zeppelin, the impression I've gotten is that their influences were more obscure than the Rolling Stones -- if anything, both bands shared influences...but influencing each other? I'm not sure.

Both are very heavily blues influenced, but Zeppelin was influenced by many more genres; folk, eastern strings, reggae, etc..
When Reach fell, I came.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2009 4:18:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Who compared the Beatles to Nirvana? Furthermore, I find it interesting that you'd have a problem with Nirvana being compared to the Beatles, and not KISS being compared to the Beatles. Wtf? Anyway, I agree that Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin were most definitely influenced by the Fab Four. It's not just the rock/pop thing, but the Beatles were the first to change the entire way that music was recorded in general. Not only did they introduce strings, exotic instruments and classical musicians to their pop act, but they also played around with various tones from guitar feedback and other sampling techniques which inevitably inspired others to do the same. I'd say that the Stones and Beatles may have both influenced rock music in general, respectively, but the Beatles went beyond the music and became cultural icons that defined a generation. I do think that they would have been popular today, just not to the extent that they were then. Remember that the Beatles were a product of their TIME; the 60s shaped the Beatles, and the Beatles shaped the 60s. Consider politics and drug culture when thinking of the Beatles as well. It's all relative :)
President of DDO
Neumax
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2009 4:56:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Beatles were so popular at the time because they had the right image, they had a different sound than other bands of the time (which was referred to as the "Mercy Sound"), and, later in their careers, they created the idea that mixed physical art with music (example - Yellow Submarine Album; Sergeant Pepper's Album; etc.).
A true optimist would think that the glass is half awesome.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2009 8:30:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/17/2009 4:56:12 PM, Neumax wrote:
The Beatles were so popular at the time because they had the right image, they had a different sound than other bands of the time (which was referred to as the "Mercy Sound"), and, later in their careers, they created the idea that mixed physical art with music (example - Yellow Submarine Album; Sergeant Pepper's Album; etc.).

More reasons than that :)

But yes, good points.
President of DDO
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2009 5:45:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/18/2009 10:15:44 AM, feverish wrote:
It's "Mersey sound", not mercy.

As in the river Mersey in Liverpool.

As opposed to the "Mercy Sound", most often played by country music stars.

As in "have mercy and stop playing that f*cking garbage!"
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Neumax
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2009 5:51:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/18/2009 10:15:44 AM, feverish wrote:
It's "Mersey sound", not mercy.

As in the river Mersey in Liverpool.

Sorry. :P I just heard the speaking of it rather than reading it so I just assumed that it was spelled how the word normally was.
A true optimist would think that the glass is half awesome.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:41:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Black and yellow black and yellow
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 6:15:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2009 8:00:22 PM, patsox834 wrote:
At 8/7/2009 8:37:18 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 8/7/2009 7:27:23 AM, theitalianstallion wrote:

We'll never know where music would've gone without The Beatles. There may not have ever been a Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Kiss, AC/DC, Ten Years After, etc without them; there may be have been. We'll just never know.

Oops, you included the Rolling Stones as being influenced by the Beatles, despite the fact that they formed around the same time (1960 and 1962 respectively) and came to America around the same time (1964). I would even go so far as to say those bands you mentioned were more influenced by the Stones than they were by the Beatles (who were quite a bit more pop than they were rock).

I definitely cannot hear even the slightest amount of Rolling Stones influence in Pink Floyd's music. I can hear some Beatles influence, though (See Emily Play.)

See Emily Play was one of the only pop rock songs pink floyd ever wrote. They wrote a few of them back in the earliest days but quickly moved on and didn't like any of the pop they wrote. They were much too creative and bold for pop rock. The Beatles grew into a progressive rock band so that's probably when they had the biggest influence on pink floyd.

With Led Zeppelin, the impression I've gotten is that their influences were more obscure than the Rolling Stones -- if anything, both bands shared influences...but influencing each other? I'm not sure.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 6:59:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wub wub wub wub
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2012 7:20:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2009 2:07:04 AM, rainshadow wrote:
Earlier I read a debate on whether the beatles would still shake the music scene if they came out today? and I would just like to state an opinion and hear yours as well.

Now, The Beatles we're not musicians who spent their time trying to be Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughn and some people assume that musicians who play guitar really good and sing in an over the top way makes the music they write good. The Beatles were very sensitive and emotional kids, putting on the record that both McCartney and Lennon's mother died when they we're both teenagers. They both expressed through words and melody the enormous pain they felt, and enormous joy they felt too. They observed life and expressed the extremes of it through music. I've noticed that people who judge The Beatles solely on their singing and guitar work and don't focus on their lyrics and music and what they are trying to say, are very shallow and emotionally inexperienced people. I've dealt with someone like that all my life, my brother who was extremely abusive and insensitive and with a personality alot like adolf hitler. Of course some people don't think The Beatles are as good as some bands nowadays and it's clear to me that they feel that way because they haven't been through what Paul McCartney and John Lennon have. They can't relate to the life they have lived, or they are just not fully emotionally developed people. These songs and this band was good because they weren't afraid of expression, and showing how they felt. Which frankly is what music is, which is expressing how you feel. You can't get the same amount of emotions out of the music by just singing over the top, or playing a skillful guitar lick as you can by pouring you're heart out into the music. Like Nirvana, there's people I know who tell me they're overrated, however the people that Nirvana attracts are people who have been through what Kurt Cobain has, people who have felt depression and have had problems with drugs and who have are manic-depressive like he was. The same goes with the Beatles, which is why they were and are still so popular, they could relate to the human condition, which most bands these days can't because the major record labels are controlled by people who know more about the stock market than they do about music, which are these young guns who haven't experienced much of life to really understand what makes music actually good. Heck, Kurt Cobain killed himself because of how shallow and twisted the music industry was getting, and how they were controlled by the wrong kind of people. Greedy, shallow people who signed bands that were at their own emotional level; which is very low. Theses record industry executives are greedy because they do things the cheap way, using voice tuners and make artists and write shallow songs for them to sing without thought and put 50 artists on their label and disregard quality and don't care about the artform and start to make it into a pure entertainment business. If you wait till you grow up and actually experience life as these people did you'll actually feel that they we're better than any other rock n' roll band. Then you'll judge if The Beatles would shake the music scene if they came out today and you'd say yes, although only if the record labels weren't so crappy, a great musical group like them wouldn't even make it nowadays.

I believe The Beatles wouldn't shake the music scene today, not because they aren't what I said they were, but because the music scene is for people who haven't entirely been where John, Paul, or Kurt have been, which some people don't understand and can't relate to till their 40 or even till the age 80. Teen pop stars who sing about shallow things, in an over the top way and even the older artists aren't as provocative as the music that evolved from the 50's and 60's. The hey day of rock n' roll was the 50's and 60's, now they have something called rock. Modern music is stuff to listen to while working out or going through your morning routine, mindless words, and drunken riddles that may sound cool to the ear, but don't ever ring as true to the heart as it used to.

It's a non sensical question as they were 90% responsible for creating the music scene of today.. Elvis pointed at the house and they kicked the doors in and everyone else followed..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)