The Beatles

>The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.

In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with.

Beatles' "aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated african rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.

 

I am not a Beatles fan, but you're seriously trying to downplay the influence The Beatles had on modern pop music. Lennon was a lyricist with the best of them and could write music that could touch people. Trying to turn this into a race thing also?



Nice copypasta fag. Make an original post or at least give credit.
http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

Most influential rock band: Led Zeppelin - made music for only 12 years and all of it was amazing.

 

Say whaaa??!?! Dude:

First off, they have over 200 songs. Now I understand "Happy birthday" or "I want to hold your hand" aren't in-depth, but you're completely denying all of the masterpieces they've written.

They're more recognized as leading the British Revolution, that's why it was big. Who says anything is based off of who's a best-seller?

 

its just copypasta stop getting mad at me.

scaruffi makes some good points which i find myself agreeing with

 

Beatles, are the most influencial.

Led Zeppelin was big, so was all the other rock bands.

BUT, The Beatles inspired THE WORLD, not just the UK, and USA.

They are hands down the best group in history, whether they were deep, whether they were the most talented, doesn't matter.

They changed the most, of any band, singer, group, anyone.

 

I still have to disagree. If we go back to the roots of it then it would be the delta blues players. Without the Blues revival in 50's UK we would have never gotten people like Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page, The Beatles, Clapton, any of them would never be the same without that core group of bluesmen. Look at the music now. Rap can be traced back to blues, pop can be traced back to boogie woogie, 90% of all rock and metal can be traced back to those bluesmen.

 

The Beatles aren't remembered for the crap churned out at the beginning of their career, but the stuff they put out nearing the end; which was very original and inspired.. Kind of renders the whole point moot.

 

If we didn't have fire, we all would be dead.

That is what you're doing.

You can't simple say "oh without them, nothing would have happened"

No one cares about them, whether they paved the way or not is unknown, but perhaps if they hadn't someone else would have.

But The Beatles changed the world, they changed music too, but not as much as they changed the world.

Led Zeppelin didn't do anything near that.

 

why are hardcore beatles fans always the most obnoxious and dense

 

I'm not even a Beatles fan. I listen to Rap and Punk, mostly.

 

Meh, I feel they more influenced the couple previous generations of music which is influencing the bands of the last decade or so. They're a significant band that was huge in their time but personally I think they're overcredited in their influence. Maybe if their second hand influence wasn't present in some music it wouldn't sound as good but I've never really been able to appreciate most of their music more than that. Not denying they first hand influenced a lot of bands but I don't see that continuing forever

 

Bluesmen changed music worldwide and are still actively influencing musicians today. Look at this latest phenomena of folk and indie music. Bands like the Black Keys are coming out and they're hitting it big. They're a blues-based garage rock band. The Beatles are influence but not as huge as the blues musicians. R'n'B is a huge part of our culture and is all influenced directly from those men. Country music is a A LOT of blues. There are still famous artists (John Mayer, Black Keys, Jack White, and just about any person now that can actually play a guitar any good) go back and cover old blues numbers. The delta bluesmen have had way more influence on music than the Beatles ever will.

 

Still have a few of there albums on my ipod to listen to when i need i feel down.

 

The Beatles were a massive cultural influence. They were massive worldwide, and were one of the first bands to have such an influence on global music.

But musically, you could argue that Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd were better. You could say that they did more innovation than the Beatles.

 

I really dig the tracks 'Lucy in the sky with diamonds' and 'Strawberry Fields Forever', just because they're badass.