Red Mosquito

bada wrote:

harmless wrote:

bada wrote:

harmless wrote:

bada wrote:

stip wrote:

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.

That's kind of hard to do since you can listen to an incredibility high percentage of songs today and pick out the Beatles influence. They are more than a spoke on the wheel as Harmless contends. They are the wheel and everyone afterwards is the treads.

What about everyone before?

ok who?

Come on, really? Do I need to answer this?

Sure I think a fair question to ask who prior to the Beatles moved the needle to such a degree in the rock music tradition. Asking the question doesn't mean it's rhetorical or I will disagree with who you list. It's more than possible I'm completely overlooking people. There are a whole bunch of incredibly significant artists that come to mind that the Beatles built on top of but they were mostly one or two hit wonders outside of Elvis or Ray Charles.

Jesus Christ. With that said, Lament has answered your question better than I could.

And since when did how many "hits" a band has become an objective marker for quality? Do we have to have the Youtube views conversation again?

I'm going to jump in here and add my name to the list of people who don't like The Beatles. No idea why - I can respect and appreciate what they did for music, but absolutely no desire whatsoever to actually listen to them

You could make the case that in less than 3 minutes Jackie Brenston moved the needle more than anyone after possibly could with Rocket 88, and that it was pretty irrelevant whether or not he ever had another hit...

harmless wrote:And since when did how many "hits" a band has become an objective marker for quality? Do we have to have the Youtube views conversation again?

You mean in the age when everything was singles? Pretty important.

Rangi Guy wrote:I'm going to jump in here and add my name to the list of people who don't like The Beatles. No idea why - I can respect and appreciate what they did for music, but absolutely no desire whatsoever to actually listen to them

This opinion is too reasonable for this absurd thread.

Birds in Hell wrote:

Rangi Guy wrote:I'm going to jump in here and add my name to the list of people who don't like The Beatles. No idea why - I can respect and appreciate what they did for music, but absolutely no desire whatsoever to actually listen to them

This opinion is too reasonable for this absurd thread.

Sorry - I'll take it elsewhere

Lament wrote:You could make the case that in less than 3 minutes Jackie Brenston moved the needle more than anyone after possibly could with Rocket 88, and that it was pretty irrelevant whether or not he ever had another hit...

It might be a crude point, but nevertheless, it's probably worth mentioning how some of these black musicians get obscured in rock history mythology, a bit like Mary Seacole being the less "famous" Florence Nightingale.

bada wrote:

harmless wrote:And since when did how many "hits" a band has become an objective marker for quality? Do we have to have the Youtube views conversation again?

You mean in the age when everything was singles? Pretty important.

No. Innovation, of any kind, is not measured in singles. It never was. Popularity is, and always was, measured in singles. I can't believe I'm having to make that point, frankly.

harmless wrote:It might be a crude point, but nevertheless, it's probably worth mentioning how some of these black musicians get obscured in rock history mythology, a bit like Mary Seacole being the less "famous" Florence Nightingale.

It's sadly very true.

I can't fathom how there are people who don't see someone like Chuck Berry as absolutely being on the same tier of impact as Elvis, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, etc.

Also I would argue that the most influential entity in modern popular music wasn't any single artist, but was the Motown label, whose massive footprint much of popular music still lives in.

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:It might be a crude point, but nevertheless, it's probably worth mentioning how some of these black musicians get obscured in rock history mythology, a bit like Mary Seacole being the less "famous" Florence Nightingale.

It's sadly very true.

I can't fathom how there are people who don't see someone like Chuck Berry as absolutely being on the same tier of impact as Elvis, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, etc.

Also I would argue that the most influential entity in modern popular music wasn't any single artist, but was the Motown label, whose massive footprint much of popular music still lives in.

Very much so. And the motown label had so much stylistic variety. Man, it's probably got a significant monopoly on innovation in the rock canon.

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:It might be a crude point, but nevertheless, it's probably worth mentioning how some of these black musicians get obscured in rock history mythology, a bit like Mary Seacole being the less "famous" Florence Nightingale.

It's sadly very true.

I can't fathom how there are people who don't see someone like Chuck Berry as absolutely being on the same tier of impact as Elvis, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, etc.

Also I would argue that the most influential entity in modern popular music wasn't any single artist, but was the Motown label, whose massive footprint much of popular music still lives in.

I can't even tell what's going on in this thread anymore, I don't know if anyone's arguing otherwise, but all of this is essentially unarguable to me. The Beatles were, and remain, an incredibly important band but they stand alongside many other artists on that same continuum of musical innovation. Who would be silly enough to take a contrary view?

Birds in Hell wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:It might be a crude point, but nevertheless, it's probably worth mentioning how some of these black musicians get obscured in rock history mythology, a bit like Mary Seacole being the less "famous" Florence Nightingale.

It's sadly very true.

I can't fathom how there are people who don't see someone like Chuck Berry as absolutely being on the same tier of impact as Elvis, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, etc.

Also I would argue that the most influential entity in modern popular music wasn't any single artist, but was the Motown label, whose massive footprint much of popular music still lives in.

I can't even tell what's going on in this thread anymore, I don't know if anyone's arguing otherwise, but all of this is essentially unarguable to me. The Beatles were, and remain, an incredibly important band but they stand alongside many other artists on that same continuum of musical innovation. Who would be silly enough to take a contrary view?

There actually was a comment (though it's since been redacted as being over-the-top) that the Beatles were "the wheel" and everything else is just "tread." The challenge was also put out to name artists of significance who preceded the Beatles when harmless argued that the people who came before them obviously had to be pretty important as well. So this whole strand has been a result of that.

Birds in Hell wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:It might be a crude point, but nevertheless, it's probably worth mentioning how some of these black musicians get obscured in rock history mythology, a bit like Mary Seacole being the less "famous" Florence Nightingale.

It's sadly very true.

I can't fathom how there are people who don't see someone like Chuck Berry as absolutely being on the same tier of impact as Elvis, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, etc.

Also I would argue that the most influential entity in modern popular music wasn't any single artist, but was the Motown label, whose massive footprint much of popular music still lives in.

I can't even tell what's going on in this thread anymore, I don't know if anyone's arguing otherwise, but all of this is essentially unarguable to me. The Beatles were, and remain, an incredibly important band but they stand alongside many other artists on that same continuum of musical innovation. Who would be silly enough to take a contrary view?

So much of this thread seems to be people pushing back against stuff that hasn't really made much of an appearance. I think people are bringing their own baggage.

digster wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:It might be a crude point, but nevertheless, it's probably worth mentioning how some of these black musicians get obscured in rock history mythology, a bit like Mary Seacole being the less "famous" Florence Nightingale.

It's sadly very true.

I can't fathom how there are people who don't see someone like Chuck Berry as absolutely being on the same tier of impact as Elvis, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, etc.

Also I would argue that the most influential entity in modern popular music wasn't any single artist, but was the Motown label, whose massive footprint much of popular music still lives in.

I can't even tell what's going on in this thread anymore, I don't know if anyone's arguing otherwise, but all of this is essentially unarguable to me. The Beatles were, and remain, an incredibly important band but they stand alongside many other artists on that same continuum of musical innovation. Who would be silly enough to take a contrary view?

So much of this thread seems to be people pushing back against stuff that hasn't really made much of an appearance. I think people are bringing their own baggage.

Really, it's all within the last page or two. It's not that difficult to follow.

digster wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:It might be a crude point, but nevertheless, it's probably worth mentioning how some of these black musicians get obscured in rock history mythology, a bit like Mary Seacole being the less "famous" Florence Nightingale.

It's sadly very true.

I can't fathom how there are people who don't see someone like Chuck Berry as absolutely being on the same tier of impact as Elvis, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, etc.

Also I would argue that the most influential entity in modern popular music wasn't any single artist, but was the Motown label, whose massive footprint much of popular music still lives in.

I can't even tell what's going on in this thread anymore, I don't know if anyone's arguing otherwise, but all of this is essentially unarguable to me. The Beatles were, and remain, an incredibly important band but they stand alongside many other artists on that same continuum of musical innovation. Who would be silly enough to take a contrary view?

So much of this thread seems to be people pushing back against stuff that hasn't really made much of an appearance. I think people are bringing their own baggage.

In this particular case, something did make an appearance; a ridiculous assertion. If the rebuttal was ridiculously obvious, it's because Lament and I gave the original post more attention than it warranted.

Lament wrote:

digster wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Lament wrote:

harmless wrote:It might be a crude point, but nevertheless, it's probably worth mentioning how some of these black musicians get obscured in rock history mythology, a bit like Mary Seacole being the less "famous" Florence Nightingale.

It's sadly very true.

I can't fathom how there are people who don't see someone like Chuck Berry as absolutely being on the same tier of impact as Elvis, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, etc.

Also I would argue that the most influential entity in modern popular music wasn't any single artist, but was the Motown label, whose massive footprint much of popular music still lives in.

I can't even tell what's going on in this thread anymore, I don't know if anyone's arguing otherwise, but all of this is essentially unarguable to me. The Beatles were, and remain, an incredibly important band but they stand alongside many other artists on that same continuum of musical innovation. Who would be silly enough to take a contrary view?

So much of this thread seems to be people pushing back against stuff that hasn't really made much of an appearance. I think people are bringing their own baggage.

Really, it's all within the last page or two. It's not that difficult to follow.

I said the thread. Not the last page.

harmless wrote:

bada wrote:

harmless wrote:And since when did how many "hits" a band has become an objective marker for quality? Do we have to have the Youtube views conversation again?

You mean in the age when everything was singles? Pretty important.

No. Innovation, of any kind, is not measured in singles. It never was. Popularity is, and always was, measured in singles. I can't believe I'm having to make that point, frankly.

For me I think the quantity of the quality is important. I don't think many people at all could name 10 songs by a lot of the artists Lament mentioned. I can't and I own a lot of their cds. Elvis, James Brown and Johnny Cash sure but I don't think La Bomba and Donna compare to the Beatles catalog. Now for some maybe that one revolutionary song is enough to put them ahead of the Beatles and that's perfectly valid. Like I said before I definitively over sold the Beatles are the whole wheel thing and I feel like I'm defending a position I don't really believe at this point so I'll leave it to the more eloquent.

The quantity of anything isn't very important. I could musically innovate right now, in my living room, but nobody would be here to make it a single so it wouldn't go in the history books.

harmless wrote:The quantity of anything isn't very important. I could musically innovate right now, in my living room, but nobody would be here to make it a single so it wouldn't go in the history books.

Like I said the quantity of amazing songs by the Beatles is an important yard stick for ME and if you are producing music that amazing in your living room and no one gets to hear it that a sad thing for the world. Good night my friend.