Red Mosquito

I'm sure that the changing nature of the production and consumption of music in general both 1) diminishes the impact that bands can now have, or will have, and 2) makes the impact of The Beatles even bigger from generation to generation. When the very idea of innovation in song-writing and recording has all but gone, the mythos of any band that truly did innovate in these areas will grow. Meanwhile, comparisons of those past innovators with current, apparently lesser bands will say less and less about the relative merits of either.

stip wrote:
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?

Am I the only person who hears Obama's voice every time someone starts a post with "let me be clear"?

Maybe if the post was drenched in ellipsis.

theplatypus wrote:Am I the only person who hears Obama's voice every time someone starts a post with "let me be clear"?

David Cameron for me.

digster wrote:

stip wrote:
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?

Not necessarily. I can imagine a sci-fi scenario in which the idea of innovation in music becomes completely extinct, and the only brilliant band left on the planet is The Beatles. They are the only great band people remember, not because there are no great bands anymore, but because the concept has all but disappeared, and so has people's critical judgement.

harmless wrote:I'm sure that the changing nature of the production and consumption of music in general both 1) diminishes the impact that bands can now have, or will have, and 2) makes the impact of The Beatles even bigger from generation to generation.

Yup. With no new clear mythical status band anymore, older, existing myths become stronger. Kinda like how when a nation is in a confused/difficult phase, former leaders are even more glorified. "Good old time", "golden age".

"Are the Beatles glorified beyond their stature" is a wholly unrelated question to "Who here doesn't really like the Beatles?"

Or, at least, one hopes.

Lament wrote:

Can we all just agree that this is awesome?

(And yes, I'm being serious)

I dig her. I have Season of Glass, Onobox and Walking on Thin Ice.

McParadigm wrote:"Are the Beatles glorified beyond their stature" is a wholly unrelated question to "Who here doesn't really like the Beatles?"

Or, at least, one hopes.

turned2black wrote:

Lament wrote:

Can we all just agree that this is awesome?

(And yes, I'm being serious)

I dig her. I have Season of Glass, Onobox and Walking on Thin Ice.

I met her recently. It was a little embarrassing that I didn't know any of her songs, but luckily she didn't ask me which were my favourites.

McParadigm wrote:"Are the Beatles glorified beyond their stature" is a wholly unrelated question to "Who here doesn't really like the Beatles?"

Or, at least, one hopes.

It should be. But one can not simply not like The Beatles, they must justify themselves, prove that they know what they're talking about (which they absolutely don't anyway), make sure to acknowledge their greatness regardless of their own interest for them. Then maybe their confession will be met with slightly less contempt. Maybe.

Heathen wrote:

McParadigm wrote:"Are the Beatles glorified beyond their stature" is a wholly unrelated question to "Who here doesn't really like the Beatles?"

Or, at least, one hopes.

It should be. But one can not simply not like The Beatles, they must justify themselves, prove that they know what they're talking about (which they absolutely don't anyway), make sure to acknowledge their greatness regardless of their own interest for them. Then maybe their confession will be met with slightly less contempt. Maybe.

Yup.

I just find it ironically funny that so many bands now are able to be dismissed after 3, 4, 5 or even 10 songs; regardless of their quality, it says a lot about how impatient people are when they can't rely on a long-established mythos (interesting that although I felt pressure to listen to a lot of Beatles songs, I felt no similar pressure to research the historical / social impact they had on subsequent cultures; that stuff is apparently a given). I took a sizeable chunk of my day trying to appreciate The Beatles, which I'm glad I did, but my opinion hasn't really changed; they have loads of songs I enjoy (more than I thought I would, admittedly), but I wouldn't call myself a fan.

Heathen wrote:

McParadigm wrote:"Are the Beatles glorified beyond their stature" is a wholly unrelated question to "Who here doesn't really like the Beatles?"

Or, at least, one hopes.

It should be. But one can not simply not like The Beatles, they must justify themselves, prove that they know what they're talking about (which they absolutely don't anyway), make sure to acknowledge their greatness regardless of their own interest for them. Then maybe their confession will be met with slightly less contempt. Maybe.

I guess I just don't care. I don't like Nirvana, and there's some of that same quality in the way people respond to that, but I don't see any reason to make that the focal point of my discussion about them. I think that, most of the time, people lean on stuff like "You can't hate Nirvana! They CHANGED things, man!" type verbiage because it's easier and feels (inaccurately) more definitive than just talking about the music on its own terms. It's the lazy, easy response, and as such it's going to be the one that people fall into. If you want something more, just change the dialog.

It comes down to this: "I don't care if they were important or not. That means nothing to me. But I'll tell you why I don't like the music, and you can tell me why you do," seems infinitely preferable to "Why are you picking on me for not liking this band you think is so important?"

McParadigm wrote:I don't like Nirvana

*Furrows brow*

Soma. wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I don't like Nirvana

*Furrows brow*

I'm exaggerating a little bit, but I really only like In Utero and a small handful of other moments (School comes to mind).

I'm listening to Nevermind for the first time in at least a decade in an act of defiance. "In Bloom" is dripping with promise. Its everything a rock single should be.

Anyone else really curious on stips opinion of Nirvana? Just me? Ok.

Sarah. wrote:Anyone else really curious on stips opinion of Nirvana? Just me? Ok.

Would like it better with someone else singing.

McParadigm wrote:

Heathen wrote:

McParadigm wrote:"Are the Beatles glorified beyond their stature" is a wholly unrelated question to "Who here doesn't really like the Beatles?"

Or, at least, one hopes.

It should be. But one can not simply not like The Beatles, they must justify themselves, prove that they know what they're talking about (which they absolutely don't anyway), make sure to acknowledge their greatness regardless of their own interest for them. Then maybe their confession will be met with slightly less contempt. Maybe.

I guess I just don't care. I don't like Nirvana, and there's some of that same quality in the way people respond to that, but I don't see any reason to make that the focal point of my discussion about them. I think that, most of the time, people lean on stuff like "You can't hate Nirvana! They CHANGED things, man!" type verbiage because it's easier and feels (inaccurately) more definitive than just talking about the music on its own terms. It's the lazy, easy response, and as such it's going to be the one that people fall into. If you want something more, just change the dialog.

It comes down to this: "I don't care if they were important or not. That means nothing to me. But I'll tell you why I don't like the music, and you can tell me why you do," seems infinitely preferable to "Why are you picking on me for not liking this band you think is so important?"

Honestly why anyone likes or doesn't like anything holds very little interest to me. Social interactions, the creation and perpetuation of cultural myths, or social stigma look like more interesting topics.