I'm not sure you can say that without being able to bite your own ear.
Go ahead, bite your own ear.
I'll wait.
.....
...
..
.
I'll bet you tried it
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Beatles on iTunes: Two Million Songs, 450,000 Albums Sold
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not sure you can say that without being able to bite your own ear.
Go ahead, bite your own ear.
I'll wait.
.....
...
..
.
I'll bet you tried it
I know perfectly well who Bach is (and, in fact, who Bach were) and comparing him with the Beatles is musical stupidity at his best.
If my dad happened to have met John Lennon in Liverpool, he could have been in the Beatles too. Overhyped experimental infants who gave the world a little over five decent songs.
So has Madonna.
There are plenty of people who study The Beatles work. Their work was even studied as it was written. So much so Lennon wrote songs to confuse them. I mean, there are even college courses on Radiohead's music. I feel there are a lot a music snobs in this thread.
Almost definitely.
I couldn't care less about any comparisons between The Beatles and Bach, but to suggest that people don't commit obsessive amounts of time and effort into analysing just about everything about them is one of the oddest things I've read for a while.
Why has Madonna been brought into this thread? (I'm sticking up for the Mo part of my username). She can kick all their a**es.
As far as overhyped...that is your opinion. 5 decent songs? Also your opinion. Obviously people disagree with your opinions, or there would be no need for this thread.
The bottom line is that whatever you want to think of them, the impact they had on a generation can't be denied. Almost half a century later, everyone still knows who they are. That isn't the result of five decent songs. I'm not sure if it's just ignorance or stubbornness, but your comment makes it hard to take you seriously.
And if your Dad can write a song like Imagine, then I'd love to meet him.
The same could be said for Madonna. Her impact wasn't the result of five decent songs either. Both the Beatles and Madonna have both transcended music, in a way that Bach just hasn't done.
That's not quite it. People were annoyed at the fact that the event was so hyped, not that it was somehow a "bad" thing.
Last edited:
It wasn't over hyped by Apple, they only stuck a teaser on their homepage for 24 hours.
When you study harmony, who are you going to study the most? Bach
When you study Music History of the Baroque era, who is going to take the biggest part of the semester? Bach.
When you study Harpsichord or organ, who is the biggest composer you are going to study? Bach. Even when you do piano, you are going to study Bach at leas at the beginning before your Liszt and Rachmaninoff.
I know they teach popular music at universities. The course on popular is music is optional. My wife took a course on popular music at Montreal university. They studied the Beatles for about 20 minutes of the whole semester. I did my bachelor's in the USA, my master's in Paris, DEM in Paris and my doctorate at Montreal. I know 20 is minutes is the most the Beatles are going to get. That's how important they are to music history. Perhaps, they are important in popular music.
You think you know about music, but your knowledge is very limited. It is just plain ridiculous to compare them to Bach.
I said if my dad ever met John Lennon: that meant that JL is about the only one with musical talent in the Beatles. Try reading a little bit better next time.
And suggesting, or even blatantly stating, that Beatles and Madonna have transcended music more than Bach is about as musically stupid as it comes. Bach not only wrote his own music (Madonna just drops into a studio every now and then), he could also conduct orchestras (the Beatles could do one thing individually; that's why they are called the Fab FOUR), his impact on developing Baroque music is unquestioned and his composition skills and musical knowledge have been admired by the likes of Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven.
24 must be your musical IQ; get some education before you enter discussions like this.
I'm saying that all those people who said, "Everyone who likes the Beatles already have all of their albums" (ahem, that list includes me!) weren't just wrong, they were epically wrong.
Kudos and 100 Internet Points to you for being one of the few to actually have the balls to say so.
Don't worry, I'm sure the majority of the others will be just as vocal, patronising and stubborn with their knee-jerk opinions when the next Apple 'Epic Fail' is announced.
Wow. Just, Wow!
I agree with the previous poster who said that The Beatles are underrated. I didn't think they were but i do now.
It's too bad that these kids will never know how much better sounding a CD can be over 256kbs. I put applelossless on my iPod and when I let someone listen they usually say wow! it sounds so good.
Haha, Kesha who?
Comment again when you are 18, if she is still around in 6 years
Maybe the Beatles should have worn meat suits to please today's generation of ignorant , uneducated followers who like celebrities just for being famous.
Just look at the sales numbers every year (not only on itunes) if that is your only measuring stick.
Beatles win
I never said nobody studies Bach when studying music. Of course they do. Even The Beatles did. But you were implying that no one studies The Beatles period, which just isn't true. And as a side note, there is no way to study Music History of the Baroque era in relation to The Beatles considering they weren't alive in the Baroque era.
And aren't you just a bit arrogant to assume to know my musical background? Please come off your high horse. You may not like The Beatles but to say they contribute/contributed nothing to music is ridiculous.
Vinyl record might be something "archaic" in some peoples' opinion, but digital music can become a "fossil" in the future (in a very near future i hope
). And don't worry, there are a lot of people who care about vinyl records; for instance a musician candidate like me.I agree. I think at some point (hopefully) Apple will offer Apple Lossless as an iTunes standard. It will just take a small leap in processing power (CPU or GPU) to convert the files quickly on the fly when syncing. I think we're close, as they do it now, but it still takes too long.
But at 256 I think you get very close for most people to find it hard to distinguish between a Lossless file and an AAC file.
Well, it's really a risk with all media formats/mediums in general. However, it's all likely going to be digital moving forward regardless of the file extension on the end of the file.
I love vinyl myself.
I had about 6 albums on vinyl. I don't have a record player anymore and didn't want to buy CDs, that's why I bought the collection on iTunes.
You can't guess everyone's reasons. Live and Let Live!
I agree, I don't know why apple doesn't already offer applelossless as a choice. I have found that simple music (one guy with a folk guitar) can get away with 256kbs but listen to some busy, complicated music and 256kbs sounds a little muffled compared to the cd (not that cds are perfect).
I think you need to do a little history reading on The Beatles before you embarrass yourself even more.
Seriously.
I am dazzled by your arguments, finished nicely with the 'let's focus on the messenger because I don't have a clue what I am talking about'.
Move on, son: this is not your topic.