home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Band: The Beatles..........

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

crap/not crap

not crap
171
86%
crap
28
14%
 
Total votes : 199

Band: The Beatles..........

Postby Chris Hardings on Sat Nov 22, 2003 4:26 pm

beatles
Chris Hardings
howard shore
howard shore
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 6:38 pm

Postby Mr. Chimp on Mon Nov 24, 2003 10:58 am

It almost seems pointless to type anything here.

Not crap for a million reasons.

Want one? The last two minutes of "I Want You (She's So Heavy)."
User avatar
Mr. Chimp
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 5:19 pm
Location: ChIL

Postby Dylan on Mon Nov 24, 2003 11:08 am

Here's another one:

All the minutes of "Everybody's Got Something To Hide (Except For Me And My Monkey)".
Dylan
Supreme Commander at the Forefront
Supreme Commander at the Forefront
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 8:56 pm
Location: The Square

Postby mattw on Mon Nov 24, 2003 11:55 am

I'm contemplating whether or not to buy Let It Be Naked

I have to admit, I didn't really like the Spector arrangements on it

This has been a bad year for the guy!
User avatar
mattw
World's Ideal Leader w/ VersatileTalents
World's Ideal Leader w/ VersatileTalents
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 12:28 pm
Location: En la casa de tu madre

yeah

Postby djanes1 on Mon Nov 24, 2003 7:15 pm

I dont even like any of the beatles music, but everyone knows they are not crap.... Even if a lot of stuff released by them is crap.
User avatar
djanes1
hank aaron
hank aaron
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 11:28 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Postby Angry_Dragon on Thu Sep 16, 2004 6:07 pm

CRAP because they are still the band upon which most people still base new music on. They were a good band but I feel like they've ruined it for all of us.
Better yet, eat the placenta!!!
User avatar
Angry_Dragon
18th Amendment
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 11:56 pm
Location: Baltimore, Where Murderous Football Players Own Resturaunts

Postby horsewhip on Thu Sep 16, 2004 6:12 pm

They introduced rock to the "concept album," so that gives them an automatic CRAP for me.

I still like some of their tunes. Almost all of the Hamburg-era stuff, select later tunes, too: "Come Together," "Helter Skelter," "Back In The USSR,"

I'd still rather listen to the Stones. Or the Kinks. Or the Zombies.
horsewhip
urinated in reservoir
urinated in reservoir
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:29 am

Postby run joe, run on Thu Sep 16, 2004 6:56 pm

I'm always suspicious of people who say they think The Beatles are crap.
run joe, run
suspicious flashlight
suspicious flashlight
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:17 am
Location: UK

Re: Band: The Beatles..........

Postby Lobster Magnet on Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:59 pm

Not crap.. But overrated to the extreme.
Lobster Magnet
les miserables
les miserables
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 6:14 pm

Postby Mayfair on Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:21 pm

I think it was their trousers.
User avatar
Mayfair
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
Master of Lit., Arts, & Architecture
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 3:08 am
Location: Chicago!

Context

Postby hazelrah on Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:57 pm

When taken in the context of their time and in people's expectations they were fine, but only within that context.
hazelrah
troll
troll
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:48 pm

In The End

Postby Redline on Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:15 pm

The Johnny Ramone posts and the 9-11 posts were bad enough, but now the Beatles are overrated to the extreme crap and were only relevant in the 60's...

This message board is out of hand...and it makes me tired.

I'm gonna sell some Beatles crap on eBay.
User avatar
Redline
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8822
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: In The End

Postby horsewhip on Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:05 pm

Redline wrote:but now the Beatles are overrated to the extreme crap and were only relevant in the 60's...


Part of the fun of Crap/Not Crap is tipping sacred cows. In Crap/Not Crap, nothing is sacred.
horsewhip
urinated in reservoir
urinated in reservoir
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:29 am

She was a Cow Tipper, yeah...

Postby Redline on Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:39 pm

Part of the fun of Crap/Not Crap is tipping sacred cows. In Crap/Not Crap, nothing is sacred.


I'm fine with that, but some of the posts on this board are pure internet assery...For the sake of assery. (That's a good made up word, assery..)

Tell us 10 reasons why The Beatles suck, and then we'll put your brain in a museum and worship it....


I'm contemplating whether or not to buy Let It Be Naked


It's worth it, but should be enjoyed as a separate item, not necessarily a "better" Let It Be. I wanted it to sound shite, but they did a good job. It's growing on me, but I still miss some of the stuff that's been drilled into my head for 34 years.
User avatar
Redline
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8822
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby connor on Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:21 pm

More reasons that you already know:

Rain

Long, Long, Long

Tomorrow Never Knows

Help!

I Am the Walrus

Dear Prudence

and fucking Helter Skelter. Do you know how hard it is for me to accept that it's the progeny of Paul McCartney? Very hard. That's how hard.
User avatar
connor
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7358
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:31 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: In The End

Postby Rog on Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:17 pm

Not Crap.



Redline wrote:The Johnny Ramone posts and the 9-11 posts were bad enough, but now the Beatles are overrated to the extreme crap and were only relevant in the 60's...

This message board is out of hand...and it makes me tired.

I'm gonna sell some Beatles crap on eBay.


"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
User avatar
Rog
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
Lode Star of the Twenty-First Century
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:39 am
Location: Two Pines Nature Center Sun Prairie, Wisc.

Postby pdc_heavy on Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:11 pm

connor wrote:More reasons that you already know:
Rain
Long, Long, Long
Tomorrow Never Knows
Help!
I Am the Walrus
Dear Prudence
and fucking Helter Skelter. Do you know how hard it is for me to accept that it's the progeny of Paul McCartney? Very hard. That's how hard.


Although I don't like much of the Beatles before '66, most of what you listed are among my personal favorites. Definitely not crap. Their recording techniques were often quite interesting to read about but a decent remastering job would be nice...and would add a few gazillion dollars to those involved.

Even if the Beatles are crap, Lennon is not crap.
User avatar
pdc_heavy
homestar
homestar
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 10:30 am
Location: MI.

Re: She was a Cow Tipper, yeah...

Postby geiginni on Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:09 pm

Redline wrote: Tell us 10 reasons why The Beatles suck, and then we'll put your brain in a museum and worship it.....


I'm not going to give 10 reasons why they suck, but I'll try for 10 reasons why they're overrated and why perhaps their fame has been detremental to music in general....

I don't want anyone worshipping my brain, either.

1. They took "rock" music and elevated it to the level of "fine art" in the minds of their public and "rock journalists". This, in the long run, has trivialized other forms of musical art, and allowed those in "rock journalism" and the larger rock fan base to remain willfully and dare I say arrogantly ignorant of other music.

2. They, functioning as a "self contained singing, songwriting, performing unit" destroyed the existing musical concept of those that wrote/composed, those that perform, those that sing, and those that arrange. It set a paradigm where all musical "acts" are expected to be self-contained, self-sufficient "units"; whether or not they are good at any or all of these things. It has fostered an environment where mediocrity can flourish.

3. They, as an early "collaborative" unit, set the trend for bands that create by concensus. Though this worked extremely well for them (as evidenced by their post-Beatles individual outputs), it does not necessary function well for many other groups. I would argue that creation by concensus also fosters mediocrity. This expectation in the world of "rock" may in fact quell individual writers who may create better individually.

4. They set the pace, beyond Elvis, of the media mania clusterfuck. The spiralling media empire, with merchandising, tie-ins, etc... set the pace for the current music industry. This never went as far with Sinatra or the Dorseys, who were huge in their time.

5. Their early output was nothing more than insipid little ditties about boy-girl relationships.

6. They spawned countless imitators, setting a trend that thrives to this day.

7. Much of their "revolutionary" creative doings were actually attributable to their production staff. George Martin deserves as much credit for their ground breaking work, as the group themselves. He did all the arranging, conducting, keyboard work (the good stuff at least), set the tracking schedule, etc... and is hugely responsible for the final result.

8. By their very popularity, they steered the music industry to deem that "everything" they sold must bear the Midas Beatles Touch. Thereby Beatles easy-listening, Beatles acid-jazz, Beatles Andy Fucking Williams records, Beatles Classical records. Alot of decent artists and genres of music in the 60's were completely fucked over by the music industry's resulting clamoring to cash in on the Beatles sound and the Now sound.

9. Their musicianship and skills were quite mediocre. They were easily eclipsed by groups like Zeppelin and King Crimson.

10. Sir Paul McCartney.....enough said.

With that said: I actually like the Beatles. They were a pretty good pop group. What I don't like is that they are treated as a Rosetta Stone of 20th Century Music.

Claude Debussy, they are not. Duke Ellington, they are not. Jascha Heifetz, they are not. Arthur Rubenstein, they are not. Eric Dolphy, they are not. Frank Zappa, they are not. Just waaaaaaay overrated.
User avatar
geiginni
Man with Encyclopedic Knowledge
Man with Encyclopedic Knowledge
 
Posts: 5122
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:33 pm
Location: Mediating the Strong Force

Re: She was a Cow Tipper, yeah...

Postby run joe, run on Sat Sep 18, 2004 9:21 am

Ah, what the hell. I have some time to use up.

geiginni wrote:
Redline wrote: Tell us 10 reasons why The Beatles suck, and then we'll put your brain in a museum and worship it.....


I'm not going to give 10 reasons why they suck, but I'll try for 10 reasons why they're overrated and why perhaps their fame has been detremental to music in general....

I don't want anyone worshipping my brain, either.

1. They took "rock" music and elevated it to the level of "fine art" in the minds of their public and "rock journalists". This, in the long run, has trivialized other forms of musical art, and allowed those in "rock journalism" and the larger rock fan base to remain willfully and dare I say arrogantly ignorant of other music.

2. They, functioning as a "self contained singing, songwriting, performing unit" destroyed the existing musical concept of those that wrote/composed, those that perform, those that sing, and those that arrange. It set a paradigm where all musical "acts" are expected to be self-contained, self-sufficient "units"; whether or not they are good at any or all of these things. It has fostered an environment where mediocrity can flourish.

3. They, as an early "collaborative" unit, set the trend for bands that create by concensus. Though this worked extremely well for them (as evidenced by their post-Beatles individual outputs), it does not necessary function well for many other groups. I would argue that creation by concensus also fosters mediocrity. This expectation in the world of "rock" may in fact quell individual writers who may create better individually.

4. They set the pace, beyond Elvis, of the media mania clusterfuck. The spiralling media empire, with merchandising, tie-ins, etc... set the pace for the current music industry. This never went as far with Sinatra or the Dorseys, who were huge in their time.

5. Their early output was nothing more than insipid little ditties about boy-girl relationships.

6. They spawned countless imitators, setting a trend that thrives to this day.

7. Much of their "revolutionary" creative doings were actually attributable to their production staff. George Martin deserves as much credit for their ground breaking work, as the group themselves. He did all the arranging, conducting, keyboard work (the good stuff at least), set the tracking schedule, etc... and is hugely responsible for the final result.

8. By their very popularity, they steered the music industry to deem that "everything" they sold must bear the Midas Beatles Touch. Thereby Beatles easy-listening, Beatles acid-jazz, Beatles Andy Fucking Williams records, Beatles Classical records. Alot of decent artists and genres of music in the 60's were completely fucked over by the music industry's resulting clamoring to cash in on the Beatles sound and the Now sound.

9. Their musicianship and skills were quite mediocre. They were easily eclipsed by groups like Zeppelin and King Crimson.

10. Sir Paul McCartney.....enough said.

With that said: I actually like the Beatles. They were a pretty good pop group. What I don't like is that they are treated as a Rosetta Stone of 20th Century Music.

Claude Debussy, they are not. Duke Ellington, they are not. Jascha Heifetz, they are not. Arthur Rubenstein, they are not. Eric Dolphy, they are not. Frank Zappa, they are not. Just waaaaaaay overrated.


1. I just don't think this is true. Not sure about the larger rock fan base (aren't they the sorts of people who buy Dido cds and stuff anyway?) but I can think of lots of bands that journalists bang on about with the same devotional fervour that some of them reserve, perhaps, for The Beatles. The Velvet Underground, Love, Bob Dylan, Neil Young....just for some of the obvious ones. I have never, or rarely at least, encountered a "trivialisation" of Captain Beefheart, Aphex Twin, Hank Williams, Elvis Presley, or Can in my trawlings through music journalism. I think you're probably referring to very mainstream publications...I don't know. If you ask a random person to name a painter, our expectation might be that, unless they were an "art fan", they would say "Picasso" or "Van Gogh". However, random people can be full of surprises. You might well ask someone from the larger rock fan base, "name a great, pioneering band," and they'd say, "Er....Genesis." Or "Van Der Graaf Generator". Or someone.

2. Come now. Mediocrity flourished before them, it flourished while they were active, and it continues to flourish. That's life. And the dismatling of the then existing system of greater divisions between the various skills that go into the making of a record isn't necessarily a bad thing (and not completely true anyway). For every Goffin/King-Wrecking Crew-Phil Spector-Jack Nitzche-Larry Levine masterpiece there were 50 pieces of shit not worth the plastic they were pressed on. (NB - I made up the figure of 50. I can't back this up, at all)

3. I also simply think that this is untrue. There are lots of bands who are driven and dominated by crazed dictators, or strong individual personalities. A lot of these bands are shit as well.

4. True, I guess. But Sinatra was a mafia loving scumbag. Not entirely relevant I know. But still.

5. Their early output was a thrilling and electrifying explosion of raw rock and roll, beauitifully and strangely morphing into pop perfection over a very short space of time (See: "Agree to disagree" poll in C/NC....)

6. This happens with anyone in any field who makes a big impact. And don't forget there are plenty of bands and artists who started out imitating The Beatles, or that were heavily inspired by them, who were totally ace.

7. Doesn't matter. One bit. Even if they weren't directly responsible, they created an environment around them in which engineers etc felt comfortable with trying things out. At the very least, they as a band ALLOWED it to happen. Delegation is a great and undervalued skill amongst artists, I feel. Just as a point of interest, Geoff Emerick was actually more "responsible" for many of the post-Rubber Soul sounds one immediately associates with The Beatles than George Martin. He was a kick ass engineer.

8. I don't know enough about 60's record company politics to comment on this. I know some "decent" bands got fucked over. I never really thought it was because their money was being pumped into Beatle Muzak projects.

9. They played perfectly as a unit. Paul McCartney is one of the all time great pop/rock bass players. Ringo is still, for me, exactly the kind of drummer I would like in my band. As you are focussing on the band's legacy and not necessarily their direct output, I think their musicianship is second to none, in terms of how it may influence people. Their musicianship - in the main - is selfless, un-flashy, restrained, and always working for the good of a song.

10. Hmmm. Taking into account just how famous this guy is, I think he's turned out okay. He's an easy target. Everyone mentions the "Froggy Song". But people don't wail on Stevie Wonder so much for "I Just called To Say I Love You", which doesn't even have the get out clause of being a kiddies' song. Paul McCartney has encouraged and supported Brian Wilson. He seems to have raised a nice family. He didn't cheat on his wife and he didn't download child porn and he played some shit hot bass. And he wrote Helter Skelter. I think he's kept his shit together remarkably well, all told.


I think maybe what's annoying you is that they have become a sort of "template" for what a great pop band could be. This is frustrating, in the same way that The Velvets still seem to cast this huge shadow over how many bands and journalists alike continue to perceive the concept of being "alternative rock". They've become a reference point, the first thing a lot of people trace the lineage of any given type of music back to. You can't blame The Beatles, or the Velvets, or anyone else, for the mediocrity of those who follow in their wake. I kinda know you're not doing that. I think they are, overall, still a force for good in music. They strove for more. As sacred cows go, we could do a lot worse.
run joe, run
suspicious flashlight
suspicious flashlight
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:17 am
Location: UK

Re: She was a Cow Tipper, yeah...

Postby geiginni on Sat Sep 18, 2004 9:39 am

run joe, run wrote:1. I just don't think this is true. Not sure about the larger rock fan base (aren't they the sorts of people who buy Dido cds and stuff anyway?) but I can think of lots of bands that journalists bang on about with the same devotional fervour that some of them reserve, perhaps, for The Beatles. The Velvet Underground, Love, Bob Dylan, Neil Young....just for some of the obvious ones. I have never, or rarely at least, encountered a "trivialisation" of Captain Beefheart, Aphex Twin, Hank Williams, Elvis Presley, or Can in my trawlings through music journalism. I think you're probably referring to very mainstream publications...I don't know. If you ask a random person to name a painter, our expectation might be that, unless they were an "art fan", they would say "Picasso" or "Van Gogh". However, random people can be full of surprises. You might well ask someone from the larger rock fan base, "name a great, pioneering band," and they'd say, "Er....Genesis." Or "Van Der Graaf Generator". Or someone.


I believe you have proven my point in this very statement. You have listed only bands and rock musicians, with the Exception of Hank Williams. There is still music out there that isn't rock. Here you have described the great breadth of music that extends from Aphex Twin to Van De Graf generator. In doing so (as many "journalists" and "fans" do) you have left out Jazz, Classical, American folk musics, European Folk and ethnic musics as well as those from the far east and entire asian continenet, africa, various latino cutures including modern cuban forms....I could go on and on.

Whenever a rock "jouranlist" finds a need to show the supposed breadth and depth of his or her musical sophistication they will ultimately mention Miles Davis' "Birth of the Cool" or "Bitches Brew", Coltranes "A Love Supreme", Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" or Beethoven's 9th and assume they've covered all the great music that came before rock - which is complete bullshit. Anyone who can pore over the minutia of two dozen "indie" bands in a genre that basically sound exactly the same can take the time to explore the last 300 years of written, passed down, and recorded music. The Beatles, as a cultural "phenomenon", I feel contributed greatly to this, vis a vis Rolling Stone magazine and the entire field of bullshit "journalism" it spawned.

run joe, run wrote:I think they are, overall, still a force for good in music. They strove for more. As sacred cows go, we could do a lot worse.


Agreed...
User avatar
geiginni
Man with Encyclopedic Knowledge
Man with Encyclopedic Knowledge
 
Posts: 5122
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:33 pm
Location: Mediating the Strong Force

Next

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: andteater, Baidu [Spider], givemenoughrope, MRoyce, steve and 21 guests