Red Mosquito

The word reason implies that this is a rational, calculated decision. I don't think it is.

I think the idea that there is this unconcisious bias, for lack of a better term, that upholds The Beatles' stature, is something I would believe even less. I go back to what I said before; even if such a thing was true, it wouldn't sustain itself. Whether it was concisious or unconcious, people wouldn't continue to listen to this stuff. Despite exceptions, the aggregate would balance it out. They wouldn't continue to have that impact on people they do.

I guess I just don't understand the need to overly complicate it. Most people think it's great stuff; you just happen to think it's not on the basis of your tastes and definitions of good and bad songwriting. It's not possible it's just that uncomplicated?

digster wrote:I guess I just don't understand the need to overly complicate it. Most people think it's great stuff; you just happen to think it's not. It's not possible it's just that uncomplicated?

A thousand times this.

stip wrote:The word reason implies that this is a rational, calculated decision. I don't think it is.

it's not really pressure, it's just a default.I think if you asked most people who only had a passing interest in rock who the greatest band of all time was, they will say the Beatles, even if they couldn't name a song. it's just what you say. they are too synonymous with rock because of the mythology. the story of rock.

nevermind that it's a ridiculous thing to think there is a greatest rock band any more than there is a greatest painter.

Thomas Kinkade. Duh.

Finally!

Birds in Hell wrote:

digster wrote:I guess I just don't understand the need to overly complicate it. Most people think it's great stuff; you just happen to think it's not. It's not possible it's just that uncomplicated?

A thousand times this.

I think that I was originally implying that it was this uncomplicated. But then a pressure was felt (possibly self-created pressure) to try harder to appreciate it, because of the impassioned responses from big Beatles fans who were telling me it wasn't that simple. When maybe it really was that simple. I didn't like most of what I'd heard before.

stip wrote: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.

washing machine wrote:Finally!

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:

Lament wrote: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.

He did, and you're absolutely right.

digster wrote:I think the idea that there is this unconcisious bias, for lack of a better term, that upholds The Beatles' stature, is something I would believe even less. I go back to what I said before; even if such a thing was true, it wouldn't sustain itself. Whether it was concisious or unconcious, people wouldn't continue to listen to this stuff. Despite exceptions, the aggregate would balance it out. They wouldn't continue to have that impact on people they do.

I guess I just don't understand the need to overly complicate it. Most people think it's great stuff; you just happen to think it's not on the basis of your tastes and definitions of good and bad songwriting. It's not possible it's just that uncomplicated?

you keep implying my point is that people are brainwashed into liking the beatles. There has to be something there people will want to listen to. And taste and personal preference is the lion's share of this. But I don't think it's the entire story.


I also think that thinking IS complicated. and how people develop their preferences and opinions are influenced by context, and the mythology of the beatles are a whale of a context

stip wrote:
you keep implying my point is that people are brainwashed into liking the beatles. There has to be something there people will want to listen to. And taste and personal preference is the lion's share of this. But I don't think it's the entire story.

I didn't mean to imply that you think people are brainwashed into liking The Beatles, but it seems clear that the 'mythology' for lack of a better term must do a lot of the lifting if we're going from here...

If the Beatles just broke today they'd be remembered as just another pretty good band. Everyone would talk about how much more talented arcade fire is. and they'd be right.

...to most celebrated rock band ever, right? I think that's a pretty large gulf.

digster wrote:

stip wrote:
you keep implying my point is that people are brainwashed into liking the beatles. There has to be something there people will want to listen to. And taste and personal preference is the lion's share of this. But I don't think it's the entire story.

I didn't mean to imply that you think people are brainwashed into liking The Beatles, but it seems clear that the 'mythology' for lack of a better term must do a lot of the lifting if we're going from here...

If the Beatles just broke today they'd be remembered as just another pretty good band. Everyone would talk about how much more talented arcade fire is. and they'd be right.

...to most celebrated rock band ever, right? I think that's a pretty large gulf.

it is, and in fairness my comment about arcade fire may just reflect my personal disinterest in the beatles

As an aside, thinking back to some of the PJ debates that have gone on, you've made a fair point that critical consensus doesn't really parallel the 'sky is falling' feel that a lot of fans have about the band's recent output. The fact that critical consensus seems to put The Beatles up there as one of the, if not the, best band ever, doesn't seem to point towards it being due more to their strength as artists more than anything else?

I guess the thing is, if it's all subjective anyway and devoid of context or 'mythology', then the statement that Arcade Fire is better than The Beatles is not ridiculous at all, because it's about personal taste. We can either say "No it isn't, because it's the Beatles", or...

digster wrote:As an aside, thinking back to some of the PJ debates that have gone on, you've made a fair point that critical consensus doesn't really parallel the 'sky is falling' feel that a lot of fans have about the band's recent output. The fact that critical consensus seems to put The Beatles up there as one of the, if not the, best band ever, doesn't seem to point towards it being due more to their strength as artists more than anything else?

well probably. the artistic strength is what brings you to the dance. But I think the critical reception of the beatles, the degree to which they are revered, the hushed tones in which they are spoken about, the way in which any opinion OTHER than the beatles would need to be carefully justified--the baseline assumption that 'of course it is the beatles, who else would it be' ties into what I'm talking about.


This is not something that I think only exists with the beatles. Look at the response to the pearl jam/led zeppelin thread the other day. Look at the way nirvana is talked about. Look at the way best songs lists are dominated by the 60s and 70s, as if the last several decades have failed to produce a fraction of the same quality music. It's all part of the same phenomena--the way in which the context influences how we think about what we hear.

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote:
you keep implying my point is that people are brainwashed into liking the beatles. There has to be something there people will want to listen to. And taste and personal preference is the lion's share of this. But I don't think it's the entire story.

I didn't mean to imply that you think people are brainwashed into liking The Beatles, but it seems clear that the 'mythology' for lack of a better term must do a lot of the lifting if we're going from here...

If the Beatles just broke today they'd be remembered as just another pretty good band. Everyone would talk about how much more talented arcade fire is. and they'd be right.

...to most celebrated rock band ever, right? I think that's a pretty large gulf.

it is, and in fairness my comment about arcade fire may just reflect my personal disinterest in the beatles

If George Washington was born today he'd be just another red neck with bad teeth. The timeline is pretty important. There would be no Arcade Fire without the Beatles.

bada wrote:

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote:
you keep implying my point is that people are brainwashed into liking the beatles. There has to be something there people will want to listen to. And taste and personal preference is the lion's share of this. But I don't think it's the entire story.

I didn't mean to imply that you think people are brainwashed into liking The Beatles, but it seems clear that the 'mythology' for lack of a better term must do a lot of the lifting if we're going from here...

If the Beatles just broke today they'd be remembered as just another pretty good band. Everyone would talk about how much more talented arcade fire is. and they'd be right.

...to most celebrated rock band ever, right? I think that's a pretty large gulf.

it is, and in fairness my comment about arcade fire may just reflect my personal disinterest in the beatles

If George Washington was born today he'd be just another red neck with bad teeth. The timeline is pretty important. There would be no Arcade Fire without the Beatles.

And there would be no Beatles without *place influences here*. They built some new spokes in the rock music wheel, but they didn't invent it.

bada wrote:

stip wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote:
you keep implying my point is that people are brainwashed into liking the beatles. There has to be something there people will want to listen to. And taste and personal preference is the lion's share of this. But I don't think it's the entire story.

I didn't mean to imply that you think people are brainwashed into liking The Beatles, but it seems clear that the 'mythology' for lack of a better term must do a lot of the lifting if we're going from here...

If the Beatles just broke today they'd be remembered as just another pretty good band. Everyone would talk about how much more talented arcade fire is. and they'd be right.

...to most celebrated rock band ever, right? I think that's a pretty large gulf.

it is, and in fairness my comment about arcade fire may just reflect my personal disinterest in the beatles

If George Washington was born today he'd be just another red neck with bad teeth. The timeline is pretty important. There would be no Arcade Fire without the Beatles.

sure. the historical importance and cultural significance of the beatles cant really be challenged. My argument is that this historical and cultural significance predisposes us to continue to like them more than the music might warrant in a vacuum.