So who here doesn't really like the Beatles

[stip]

nah. I don't even have a smart phone. Do people use twitters from desktops?

[Heathen]

@ShitStipSays

[Lament]

Yeah. I probably do most of my tweeting from my computer.

[stip]

I did just eat a pear, and it was delicious, and I was sitting here thinking it would be great if I had a wider platform so people could know that this had happened.

[Sarah.]

I would follow stip on twitter.

[harmless]

If you told me I had to choose someone's side to be on in an argument, but I wasn't allowed to know the topic in advance, I would take stip over Dana Carvey 100% of the time. And it'd be the right choice close to 100% of the time.

What if you were an actor and were seeking advice on which movie roles to take. Dana Carvey or stip?

[Sarah.]

nah. I don't even have a smart phone. Do people use twitters from desktops?

I love this post.

[Soma.]

Me too. You could bludgeon someone to death with my old flip-phone. Archaic brofist, stip.

[Jorge]

I did just eat a pear, and it was delicious, and I was sitting here thinking it would be great if I had a wider platform so people could know that this had happened.

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/

[Lament]

If you told me I had to choose someone's side to be on in an argument, but I wasn't allowed to know the topic in advance, I would take stip over Dana Carvey 100% of the time. And it'd be the right choice close to 100% of the time.

What if you were an actor and were seeking advice on which movie roles to take. Dana Carvey or stip?

Didn't Dana Carvey make a movie where he played a giant turtle?

The right choice in this situation would obviously be stip.

[stip]

I did just eat a pear, and it was delicious, and I was sitting here thinking it would be great if I had a wider platform so people could know that this had happened.

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/

suck it, twitter!

[Soma.]

I did just eat a pear, and it was delicious, and I was sitting here thinking it would be great if I had a wider platform so people could know that this had happened.

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/

Wider.

[Jorge]

I did just eat a pear, and it was delicious, and I was sitting here thinking it would be great if I had a wider platform so people could know that this had happened.

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/

Wider.

I took that to mean wider than this thread.

[Soma.]

Like Sam Neil as Merlin willing a tree branch to spontaneously elongate, so too would I fatten the interwebs.

[digster]

What may change this is the way in which the democratization of music pushes against the idea of their being a canon, or even history, in music. Maybe that enhances the stature of the Beatles and any band that comes from the period where there was a common story to rock music. But maybe, in the absence of that story being told, the importance of the mythology fades, and the Beatles are finally remembered solely for the merits of the music, and not the mythology.

And the fact that The Beatles' stature has continued to endure, even thrive as music has become increasingly democratized doesn't give you pause that maybe that stature is earned?

Too soon. And again, obviously the music has to be good. It is a question, again, of how good. Do you find nirvana mythologized?

I find the story of Nirvana overly simplified, if that's what you mean. And I don't know how we know whether it's 'too soon' or not to judge that impact. I find it much easier to support the idea that the way we take in music has changed substantially over the past decade, vs. arguing that it's 'too soon' to make a call on what impact that's had on The Beatles.

I don't think a strong interest in a band's music, and the way in which people continue to discover The Beatles' music, could be sustained on a foundation that's based in this nebulous 'mythology' idea and not in the fact that they made great music. This has nothing to do with liking The Beatles or not; it doesn't upset me or offend me if people think they suck (nor do I think there's really been much of that in this thread at all). But if 9 and 10 people like them and you're the 1, it merely means you're in the minority. It doesn't mean you're wrong, nor does it mean that the 9 other viewpoints have reached their feelings on the music through tainted means, or because they're hoodwinked by some stature or mythology supplemental to the band. I wouldn't disagree with you that a mythology about the band exists, but I don't think the band would have the stature they do and continue to be loved and listened to in the way they are if that was really in any way significant to people's enjoyment of them.

[Birds in Hell]

Man, I love Nirvana.

[stip]

What may change this is the way in which the democratization of music pushes against the idea of their being a canon, or even history, in music. Maybe that enhances the stature of the Beatles and any band that comes from the period where there was a common story to rock music. But maybe, in the absence of that story being told, the importance of the mythology fades, and the Beatles are finally remembered solely for the merits of the music, and not the mythology.

And the fact that The Beatles' stature has continued to endure, even thrive as music has become increasingly democratized doesn't give you pause that maybe that stature is earned?

Too soon. And again, obviously the music has to be good. It is a question, again, of how good. Do you find nirvana mythologized?

I find the story of Nirvana overly simplified, if that's what you mean. And I don't know how we know whether it's 'too soon' or not to judge that impact. I find it much easier to support the idea that the way we take in music has changed substantially over the past decade, vs. arguing that it's 'too soon' to make a call on what impact that's had on The Beatles.

I don't think a strong interest in a band's music, and the way in which people continue to discover The Beatles' music, could be sustained on a foundation that's based in this nebulous 'mythology' idea and not in the fact that they made great music. This has nothing to do with liking The Beatles or not; it doesn't upset me or offend me if people think they suck (nor do I think there's really been much of that in this thread at all). But if 9 and 10 people like them and you're the 1, it merely means you're in the minority. It doesn't mean you're wrong, nor does it mean that the 9 other viewpoints have reached their feelings on the music through tainted means, or because they're hoodwinked by some stature or mythology supplemental to the band. I wouldn't disagree with you that a mythology about the band exists, but I don't think the band would have the stature they do and continue to be loved and listened to in the way they are if that was really in any way significant to people's enjoyment of them.

what do you mean by oversimplified? Do you think that the way nirvana's music is remembered is strictly a consequence of how good the music was, or is it also related to the idea of Nirvana?

We both agree that music has changed. My point is that if you're dealing with the way a mythology impacts how people listen to and interact with music (or anything) that will take a long time to discover. Decades, perhaps. We'll need to see what people think who come of age (musically) in a world where the opinion makers themselves no longer feel any connection to the old story. The real impact of the civil rights movement and changes in race relations wasn't felt by the parents of the 60s, or even the children of the 60s. It was the children of the children of the 60s where you start to see the real significant change.

I keep saying there needs to be something in the music to make them appealing. So the Beatles had to have been a great band. This is why, for all the talk about how great sonic youth is, they remain a niche artist. Their music is not really going to appeal to a widespread audience no matter how good some people say it is. Again, my point is that the IDEA of the beatles almost certainly has an affect on how people hear the music. We are primed to like it, and this will impact our experience of music, as it would our experience of everything. This is not a literal reproduction: 'people say the Beatles are great and therefore I like them'. There has to be something there for you to grab onto. But if there is the way you hear the music will be influenced.


This is the case with religion. It is the case with politics. it is the case with relationships. This goes far beyond music.

[digster]

You're basically talking about 'homework' music, music you listen on the basis of it's importance rather than the import it holds emotionally for you. I believe that people are drawn to music that others tell them is essential; I will listen to something on the basis of it being 'influential' but I would not keep listening to it over and over again if it did not eventually scratch that itch I need with music. A band that doesn't speak to me, even if it's celebrated, wouldn't be something that I reach for, something that gets entwined in my life, if it's not music I find, you know, good. That's where I'm at with this; homework music exists, but it's not sustaining. I'm sure a lot of people tried The Beatles on the basis of their stature in pop culture, but they wouldn't continue to have that place in people's lives, including those fans whose parents were not even around when the band was active, if they weren't able to back it up.

[stip]

You're basically talking about 'homework' music, music you listen on the basis of it's importance rather than the import it holds emotionally for you. I believe that people are drawn to music that others tell them is essential; I will listen to something on the basis of it being 'influential' but I would not keep listening to it over and over again if it did not eventually scratch that itch I need with music. A band that doesn't speak to me, even if it's celebrated, wouldn't be something that I reach for, something that gets entwined in my life, if it's not music I find, you know, good. That's where I'm at with this; homework music exists, but it's not sustaining. I'm sure a lot of people tried The Beatles on the basis of their stature in pop culture, but they wouldn't continue to have that place in people's lives, including those fans whose parents were not even around when the band was active, if they weren't able to back it up.

I wouldn't argue with any of that, but I'm not talking about homework music. At least that's not the real point I want to make here. My argument is that the mythology behind the beatles means people are more open to liking them, and perhaps primed to overstate their greatness.


Witness the way we talk about pearl jam on this board (or maybe the pit). You can see the same phenomena on a much smaller scale, and the more that poster thinks pearl jam is the alpha and the omega of music the more likely this is to be the case. Platy has made the case a few times that some people like something more because it is pearl jam. And he's right, although I don't think this is a bad thing. Same thing with the Beatles on a mass scale. That's my theory, anyway.

[digster]

I don't think I'd say that's the same phenomena at all, though. One group are people that are so into Pearl Jam that they go onto boards to talk about the band further, going to the tiniest detail. That's not to say it's not worthwhile or rewarding, but you're diving in pretty deep once you reach that point. And how many people are we talking about on those boards? A thousand? I doubt it, maybe a few hundred at most. It's something different when you talk about the stature The Beatles have.

I just don't really see what reason people would have to overstate The Beatles' greatness, 45 years after they broke up. I see peer pressure having an influence on people listening to present day artists in order to seem 'hip', but The Beatles?