Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Flowbee

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Dec 27, 2002
2,943
0
Alameda, CA
It certainly didn't sound that way to me, it sounded more like trying to add more weight to your own opinions because you were channeling the opinion of someone famous. And saying "I know X, he would disagree with that" is not first-hand knowledge; at best, it's speculation of someone else's opinon. And frankly, with the level of anonymity here, nobody should believe that you know his opinion of this thread (nor should they believe I know anyone's opinions but my own) without any sort of citation.

First off, the only opinion I'm "backing up" here is that I think it's funny to try and discount the Beatles' influence by (unknowingly) citing musicians who were inspired by the Beatles. I never claimed to know anyone's opinion of this thread, just their opinion of the Beatles' influence on popular music... which I know first hand. Don't believe me? I can live with that.
 

GorillaPaws

macrumors 6502a
Oct 26, 2003
932
8
Richmond, VA
Also, someone on this thread compared their popularity to that of Windows to make the point that popular != good. It's really not the same thing. The Beatles were popular because people liked their music, not because a Beatles record came with (almost) every hi-fi set people bought.

Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority

I'm not getting into the Beatles were good vs. they were an over-hyped version of the backstreet boys thing. I just don't want people to use fallacious arguments in their discussions, it wastes everyone's time and energy sifting out the garbage.

Also, it is possible to hate something that influences you. Take for example: kids who grew up with a physically abusive father who then grow up to be physically abusive to their own children.
 

benpatient

macrumors 68000
Nov 4, 2003
1,870
0
wow. lots of Beatles' hating going on here.

the currently-available CD versions of most Beatles music (other than things found on the Anthology discs) is in desperate need of a true remastering. If you've listened to the Love disc in 5.1, or even in stereo, you know how much was lost in the first digital transfer back in the late 80s/early 90s. That music can sound SOOO much better. I'm not going to buy it unless it's lossless digital (or on CD/DVD). iTMS offers it lossless, and I'll rebuy almost all of these albums.

The Beatles weren't just in the right place at the right time. As one poster already said, the only band that comes close in terms of scope and relevance and sheer musical brilliance is Led Zep. (Their catalog also badly needs a remastering from the original tracks)

i for one can't wait...
 

calculus

Guest
Dec 12, 2005
4,504
5
I agree with backsidetail....

If the Beatles started today they'd get nowhere. They just happen to be in the right time. All their stuff is very dated sounding.
Name a band that's changed music and hugely influenced other bands?
I feel Black Sabbath had more of an impact on music than The Beatles.

That is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever read on MR!
 

nemaslov

macrumors 6502a
Jul 22, 2002
753
9
San Francisco
I can't believe so many so-called music fans are playing down the importance of The Beatles.

I'm not the biggest Beatles fan in the world, but I don't see how you can turn a blind eye to their influence, impact and musical significance.

What they did in a recording studio alone is probably enough to justify them as the most important band of the past 50 years. The amazing things they were able to create on 4-tracks put the multi-track sessions of today to shame, and there's techniques that George Martin innovated that STILL haven't been replicated by today's artists.

As far as the music itself goes, almost any of the music that's recorded today can be directly or indirectly traced back to the band's post-Revolver work track by track. This is a band whose individual SONGS went on to form entire GENRES of music.

Further, no band I can think of has been able to release albums full of such diversity that are still coherent. Any given Beatles album from 1965 onward had four, five, six even seven or eight different styles of music, all beautifully packaged to fit into the album format. They were masters of the 3 minute single, but even more so masters of the LP.

Then there's their album artwork (they brought Pop Art to the masses with Peter Blake's Sgt. Pepper album sleeve, and released one of the must stunningly minimal album covers ever in an era of excess with The White Album), their films (which themselves could be argued as seminal), their style, etc, etc, etc.

If a recording artist today doesn't site them as a major influence, I guarantee you most of the artists they DO site were Beatles fans.

To say that the Beatles today wouldn't have the same impact because they were "at the right place at the right time" completely ignores the fact that the musical landscape would be an entirely different world without them.

Elvis, The Rolling Stones, Buddy Holly, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin - they all had great bodies of work, but the level of evolution in The Beatles catalogue is just amazing... each release totally blew away the last and came out of left field to an unexpected audience.

Never again will such a talented, ground-breaking band garner as much mass appeal as The Beatles were able to with their genre defining work.

End of story.

AND....there is a unreleased 25 minute version of Helter Skelter...That song along influenced what became Heavy Metal. And good or bad Strawberry Fields and I am the Walrus invented ELO (they freely admit that). AND Oasis...well they have never been original. I Feel Fine: The first Feedback guitar ever on record. Rain: first backwards tape. Rubber Soul first album ever released by an artist that did not even have the name of the artist on the cover...just said Rubber Soul. The White Album cover...enough said. Sgt Pepper: Lyrics included!!!..and cut out mustaches :) Yesterday and Today Butcher Cover..an early anti war protest...pulled by Capitol Records. Introduced country music to non country fans (with songs like I Don't want to Spoil the Party and others). ..George Harrison with Within you Without you and the Wonderwall Soundtrack mostly likely "invented" or introduced what we now refer to popular World Music with the sitar and Ravi Shankar...and A Day in the Life which is probably one of the most important single recordings ever created. oh and All You Need is Love was written for and sung live (with a prerecorded original backing track) for the first ever World's Live Satellite broadcast. Today that is no big deal, but the Beatles represented Britain for that event.:apple:
 

backsidetailsli

macrumors 65816
Aug 1, 2006
1,377
1
Toronto!
Over rated and over hyped? Have you even listened to the Beatles? This is a band that in just 7 years went from "Love me do" to "Abbey Road". Name another band that so totally changed their music in a short amount of time, explored new paths, influenced more bands and basically changed the world. The only other band that comes close would probably be Led Zeppelin.

Name a band like that today. Hell, name a band that even sticks around for 2 years! Seems you hear from a band one month, then they're gone forever. No one comes along now to totally change everything and influence so many. I mean, how many big named bands were started the day after the Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan? You'd be surprised.

If you don't like the Beatles that's fine. Opinions vary of course. But to deny their legacy and influence is a bit short sighted.

not trying to start an argument but id like to clarify my opinion. maybe even change yours. i wrote "right place at the right time" because thats what it comes down to for them. if my band came out at that time, instead of the beatles, we would probably have given everyone the same mania. they did not do anything special at all. its because of them being a mediocre band that people havent heard before that made them famous and all influential.

I agree with backsidetail....

If the Beatles started today they'd get nowhere. They just happen to be in the right time. All their stuff is very dated sounding.
Name a band that's changed music and hugely influenced other bands?
I feel Black Sabbath had more of an impact on music than The Beatles.

As for more modern music:
Nine Inch Nails
Nirvana
Grand Master Flash
Run DMC
Metallica
Iron Maiden

Christ if it wasn't for Eddie Van Halen (or Billy Sheehan, depending on your view) the guitar solo wouldn't be what it is today.

thank you for understanding.
btw Black Sabbath is a better candidate.
 

Digitalclips

macrumors 65816
Mar 16, 2006
1,475
36
Sarasota, Florida
No, no, no, you all have it all wrong.

Steve Jobs did the first ever solo, with any instrument.
Steve Jobs invented 4-4 time.
Steve Jobs actually wrote all of the Beatles music.
Steve Jobs actually was the lead guitarist for most modern bands since 1956.
Steve Jobs is the only person who has influence on musical trends.

There, thats better.

Heh, if MacOSRumors was still around they'd pick this up. Well, maybe ThinkSecret...

I'm betting TheBobCat is Bill Gates really ... right ...? C'mon admit it :)
 

nemaslov

macrumors 6502a
Jul 22, 2002
753
9
San Francisco
not trying to start an argument but id like to clarify my opinion. maybe even change yours. i wrote "right place at the right time" because thats what it comes down to for them. if my band came out at that time, instead of the beatles, we would probably have given everyone the same mania. they did not do anything special at all. its because of them being a mediocre band that people havent heard before that made them famous and all influential.

I guess they have hypnotized a billion people for the past forty years. If their recordings were not good, they would not have "lasted" this long. The right place right time thing is only valid is that the world was ready (but they didn't know it) for something different. Kennedy had just been killed and the stage was set. There were not billions of media outlets like today (radio, television, intenet) and VIRTUALLY EVERYONE watched the Ed Sullivan Show on Sunday nights. But if the talent was not there, they would have soon faded.

It is not that they were techically the best musicians ever, but as a group created something much more interesting than many bands with better guitar players.

I have about ten thousand albums and CDs but i don't seem to have your album. Sorry, it slipped by.
 

Unspeaked

macrumors 68020
Dec 29, 2003
2,448
1
West Coast
not trying to start an argument but id like to clarify my opinion. maybe even change yours. i wrote "right place at the right time" because thats what it comes down to for them. if my band came out at that time, instead of the beatles, we would probably have given everyone the same mania. they did not do anything special at all. its because of them being a mediocre band that people havent heard before that made them famous and all influential.

Your clarification is even more ignorant than your original statement.

The Beatles hold a legendary place in musical history not because they were the first pop/rock band to come along and treat music as more than a disposable 45 rpm record that charts for a few weeks and gets replaced by the next single a month later; not because they pushed the limits and boundaries of the recording technology and studio equipment that was available at the time; not because they perfected the idea of a concept album which was meant to played in a sitting rather than taken track by track; not because they were made up of 4 talented singer/songwriters, each more impressive than the next; not because of the depths they explored in creating their albums, taking influence from blues to jazz to the far east and bringing them to the masses in an accessible way, while still paying respect to their forbearers; not because they could produce music that appealed to everyone from children to teenagers to young adults and sometimes their parents...

...they hold that spot atop the list of the world's greatest bands because they were the only ones that could have done this.

Music was around long before The Beatles and it's been around ever since, but no single artists or group of artists has come together the way The Beatles managed to in their relatively short time period.

The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, The Who, The Byrds - if it was as easy as being in the right place at the right time, any of the rock bands of the 60s would be considered interchangeable with The Beatles.

Instead, The Beatles stand head and shoulders above their British Invasion siblings or their American counterparts because they were always one step ahead of these bands. In fact, they were often four or five steps ahead, as some bands today are *still* trying to catch up.

To call them "mediocre" says a lot more about your ability to hear music, comprehend history or experience popular culture than it does about The Beatles themselves...
 

Zadillo

macrumors 68000
Jan 29, 2005
1,546
49
Baltimore, MD
not trying to start an argument but id like to clarify my opinion. maybe even change yours. i wrote "right place at the right time" because thats what it comes down to for them. if my band came out at that time, instead of the beatles, we would probably have given everyone the same mania. they did not do anything special at all. its because of them being a mediocre band that people havent heard before that made them famous and all influential.

????

This doesn't even make logical sense; they were a mediocre band that was only successful because people hadn't heard them before?

You act like the Beatles were the only band around at the time. There were plenty of other bands that were part of the "British invasion", not to mention plenty of American bands. Some were great, some were mediocre. If it was just about having a new sound, there were plenty of other bands that fit that bill (and had some modicum of success during the same timeframe).

If the Beatles were nothing but a mediocre band though, they would have flamed out after the height of Beatlemania. None of those other bands though followed up with stuff like Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, etc.

Honestly, this is just mindblowing to me. You don't like them? That's fine. But to say that they were just a mediocre band whose success was about timing, etc. is just incredibly off the mark.
 

Flowbee

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Dec 27, 2002
2,943
0
Alameda, CA
if my band came out at that time, instead of the beatles, we would probably have given everyone the same mania. they did not do anything special at all.

If anything, it would be easier now to create Backlash-mania than it would have been in the 1960s. Between digital distribution and sites like MySpace, you can build an international following without ever leaving your hometown, or signing with a major label. So what's your excuse?
 

Zadillo

macrumors 68000
Jan 29, 2005
1,546
49
Baltimore, MD
I think you should speak to Ozzy Osbourne about this. He is a huge Beatles fan. Without The Beatles Black Sabbath would never have existed!

Yeah, this is something I noted in my post above. He cited the Beatles as a major influence on him, and said that "Revolver" is his favorite album.

Surprising that Ozzy would be influenced by a mediocre band, huh?
 

backsidetailsli

macrumors 65816
Aug 1, 2006
1,377
1
Toronto!
If anything, it would be easier now to create Backlash-mania than it would have been in the 1960s. Between digital distribution and sites like MySpace, you can build an international following without ever leaving your hometown, or signing with a major label. So what's your excuse?

not the point
 

InfernalMachine

macrumors newbie
Feb 12, 2007
9
0
Keep Practicing... Please...

I went to Backsidetailsli's web site and can say one thing - sounds like poorly played, barely intelligible, silly named ska/punk/emo chaos. Sorry to be blunt, but this is the problem with most of the Beatles complaints and "haters". To call the Beatles mediocre and then hear this just continues to ruin my day. Maybe more knowledgeable people's opinions should register higher than the misinformed and questionably talented types. I think Backsidetaisli needs the Beatles more than he/she thinks... I am truly sorry for even engaging in this debate now that I know I was up against such "lightweights". IM P.S. I like the comments about how today with myspace, youtube, and other "shameless" self-promoting outlets a record deal is STILL elusive. Right on the money! Now get to writing some solid songs!
 

Zadillo

macrumors 68000
Jan 29, 2005
1,546
49
Baltimore, MD
I went to Backsidetailsli's web site and can say one thing - sounds like poorly played, barely intelligible, silly named ska/punk/emo chaos. Sorry to be blunt, but this is the problem with most of the Beatles complaints and "haters". To call the Beatles mediocre and then hear this just continues to ruin my day. Maybe more knowledgeable people's opinions should register higher than the misinformed and questionably talented types. I think Backsidetaisli needs the Beatles more than he/she thinks... I am truly sorry for even engaging in this debate now that I know I was up against such "lightweights". IM P.S. I like the comments about how today with myspace, youtube, and other "shameless" self-promoting outlets a record deal is STILL elusive. Right on the money! Now get to writing some solid songs!

Are you saying Backlashmania might not be imminent?
 

john789

macrumors member
Jan 25, 2007
63
0
Portland, OR
Beattles?

What is all the hype about Beattles coming to itunes and all that? i mean they are and old group so who cares? what is the relevance? if there is one i want to know...i think that the new mac os x due to come soon is better news than Apple Inc winning over Apple Corp...who cares about Apple Corp?? they should just close and let Apple Inc keep innovating and selling great things. Beattles?? their time is way over...open space for new talents..:)
 

Neuro

macrumors regular
Jun 15, 2003
209
2
London
Let's face it, any news story taking about the Beatles catalogue being available will mention Apple iTunes... Not any of the other stores....
 

SactoGuy18

macrumors 601
Sep 11, 2006
4,386
1,551
Sacramento, CA USA
Putting my €0.02 of comments!

1) I'm glad that it appears the Beatles will be coming to the iTunes Music Store. They are without doubt one of the most influential musical groups of the 20th Century, period. Four of their albums--Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road--literally took rock 'n roll music to a new, more sophisticated direction artistically. :)

2) In a way, the Beatles lucked out because they filled a void in rock 'n roll, a music that literally was almost dead (pun intended) by 1960 after Elvis Presley was in the Army for three years, Chuck Berry got arrested for a number of crimes, and the untimely death of Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J.P. Big Bopper Richardson in 1959. Holly, Valens and the Big Bopper could have continued the dominance of Americans in rock 'n roll well in the 1960's (and probably beyond) had they lived....
 

Zadillo

macrumors 68000
Jan 29, 2005
1,546
49
Baltimore, MD
What is all the hype about Beattles coming to itunes and all that? i mean they are and old group so who cares? what is the relevance? if there is one i want to know...i think that the new mac os x due to come soon is better news than Apple Inc winning over Apple Corp...who cares about Apple Corp?? they should just close and let Apple Inc keep innovating and selling great things. Beattles?? their time is way over...open space for new talents..:)

The relevance is that the Beatles are one of the highest profile music groups to not have any digital music distribution, and that it will be a big deal when it finally happens. I'm not going to go into all the stuff that's already been said, but suffice to say, they are incredibly relevant because they are one of the most important groups in music, and music has become a major part of Apple's business.

Honestly though....... "they are an old group so who cares?". Let me guess, you think Mozart and Bach are irrelevant to because they are old? It only matters if the latest Fall Out Boy album is available on iTunes?
 

john789

macrumors member
Jan 25, 2007
63
0
Portland, OR
Yeah the Beattles also "insipired" some of the crazyest people as well. who was that guy that heard a beattles disc and thought they were telling him that the world was going to end? it was a guy that recruited girls or something..very horrific. Im not saying it was the beattles fault or anything..
 

Zadillo

macrumors 68000
Jan 29, 2005
1,546
49
Baltimore, MD
1) I'm glad that it appears the Beatles will be coming to the iTunes Music Store. They are without doubt one of the most influential musical groups of the 20th Century, period. Four of their albums--Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road--literally took rock 'n roll music to a new, more sophisticated direction artistically. :)

2) In a way, the Beatles lucked out because they filled a void in rock 'n roll, a music that literally was almost dead (pun intended) by 1960 after Elvis Presley was in the Army for three years, Chuck Berry got arrested for a number of crimes, and the untimely death of Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J.P. Big Bopper Richardson in 1959. Holly, Valens and the Big Bopper could have continued the dominance of Americans in rock 'n roll well in the 1960's (and probably beyond) had they lived....

It would be an interesting "what if?" question, but I think that even if Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper survived and continued making music throughout the 60's, the Beatles would still have been quite successful, critically and commercially.

-Zadillo

Yeah the Beattles also "insipired" some of the crazyest people as well. who was that guy that heard a beattles disc and thought they were telling him that the world was going to end? it was a guy that recruited girls or something..very horrific. Im not saying it was the beattles fault or anything..

Charles Manson - in particular he was influenced by the song "Helter Skelter", but also the entire "White Album". Given his psychological state, it probably isn't that surprising that a song and album like that was interpreted by him the way it was.

To be clear though, Helter Skelter didn't specifically "inspire" him (that is, it's not like it was that song that put him on the deep end).

Here's the wiki information specifically on that:

Manson regarded as foretold, by The Beatles, on The White Album,[1] an apocalyptic war of which he was destined to be both the uncanny cause and the ultimate beneficiary.[2] When, by his music, he (Manson) would have drawn to him the young, white female hippies of San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district, black men, thus deprived of the white women whom the political changes of the 1960s had made sexually available to them, would be without an outlet for their frustrations and would lash out in violent crimes against whites.[3] After a resultant murderous rampage against blacks by frightened whites would have been exploited by the Black Muslims to trigger a war of mutual near-extermination between racist and non-racist whites over the treatment of blacks, the Black Muslims would arise to finish off sneakily the few whites they would know to have survived. In this epic sequence of events, which Manson told his followers would take place in the summer of 1969 and which he termed Helter Skelter, after the White Album track of that name, the Family had little to fear; they would wait out the war in a secret city that was underneath California's Death Valley and that they would reach through a hole in the ground. As the actual remaining whites upon the war's true conclusion, they would emerge from underground to rule the now-satisfied blacks, who, as the vision went, would be incapable of running the world; Manson "would scratch [the black man's] fuzzy head and kick him in the butt and tell him to go pick the cotton and go be a good ******." Laid out by Manson repeatedly, this scenario became such a part of the Family members’ communal belief that they stocked up supplies and searched for the hole in the ground before the crimes were conceived; but by mid-1969, Manson was heard to say blacks did not know how to start the events. He would have to show them.

There is plenty more at the Charles Manson entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.