Regarding The Beatles

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.

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.

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.

Always.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.