I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
That's not what I said though was it. I said that if the Beatles hadn't existed then some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation.
Just to clarify, I do not agree that the Beatles are overrated. As Henry said, it's all context. Your first post gives the impression that modern music would no exist without the Beatles, or that those born after their time are not allowed to express an opinion on their music and should be grateful that people like you have appointed themselves custodians of musical history.
I gave the impression that modern music would not exist, did I really, I don’t remember saying that? Of course it would, it always has and always will.
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
Sorry Soundas but The Stones (Keef) wrote better and more songs than the Beatles !
Thou shalt not put musicians and recording artists on ridiculous pedestals no matter how great they are or were. The Beatles: Were just a band.
And who the fuck is Scroobius Pip and why do we care what he or she says?
Apart from being a respected artist in his own right, I think it is more the message that is important and not who said it. The actual quote includes about 20 other bands who are "just a band" but people tend to put on ridiculous pedestals.
On the subject of 'good, bad, talented, average etc' musicians/bands/singers. Spending some time in a music academy, I had the chance to witness examples of all of the above. I was moved/touched by a few of them, and in my personal experience it had very little to do with how 'good' they or there music was. It had everything to do with where I was coming from, and what boxes they ticked for me on the day. The worshiping of 'good' music is what led Rossini to say about Wagners music: "his music is much better than what it sounds"...
On the subject of 'good, bad, talented, average etc' musicians/bands/singers. Spending some time in a music academy, I had the chance to witness examples of all of the above. I was moved/touched by a few of them,..
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
Sorry Soundas but The Stones (Keef) wrote better and more songs than the Beatles !
LOL They also had more hair.
If memory serves, by the time Jagger/Richards wrote their first song the Beatles had already written something like 6 number 1 singles, 2 or 3 albums, a film soundtrack, oh and tossed off a song in 5 minutes that handed the Stones their first hit.
If I didn't know better I might think you were trying to wind-up Soundas
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
Sorry Soundas but The Stones (Keef) wrote better and more songs than the Beatles !
I agree that the Mick and Keef wrote better songs but they were pushed into writing their own stuff (literally locked in a room by their manager) because the times had changed and bands were expected to write their own songs soley because of the Beatles doing so.
Before that the Stones were a covers band. A very good covers band but just that. They even did a Lennon/McCartney song.
And even when they did start writing stuff much of it was a terrible steal (the last time for example)
The Stones are a far better band for me but then again they didn't break up in 1970. The four individual Beatles were still churning our great songs (maybe I'm amazed, photograph) after the break up.
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
Errrrm no......their song writing made sure of that.....at the time no one else came close to the volume they produced time and time again and in such quick time fire too. It really was amazing.
Just to confirm, you do realise that this is just your opinion, and it is OK for people to disagree with you?
Btw I'm not one of the people you are raging against, but Leuth made some great points regarding that they were very much the right hand in the right moment.
Malcolm Gladwell has a good chapter on The Beatles in his book, Outliers. About opportunity and timing - and in their case, practice. They were a distinctly average band when they arrived in Germany, and were forced to play so many shows that year, they honed their skills until they were so bloody good at playing live, they were well ahead of their peers.
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
Sorry Soundas but The Stones (Keef) wrote better and more songs than the Beatles !
LOL They also had more hair.
If memory serves, by the time Jagger/Richards wrote their first song the Beatles had already written something like 6 number 1 singles, 2 or 3 albums, a film soundtrack, oh and tossed off a song in 5 minutes that handed the Stones their first hit.
If I didn't know better I might think you were trying to wind-up Soundas
Not a WUM at all, Soundas said 'I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.' The Stones got their break form Lennon and McCartney, undoubtedly, but the Stones Catalogue of top quality material in the late 60's and all the 70's knocks Lennon/McCartney and Harrison was into second place. FWIW - I love Lennon and McCartney and without doubt the biggest influence on modern pop music was the Beatles, no argument, however the greatest song writer of the 20th Century was and is Keith Richards, no one comes close to the quality and quantity of his creativity and recording excellence, no one.
Thou shalt not put musicians and recording artists on ridiculous pedestals no matter how great they are or were. The Beatles: Were just a band.
And who the fuck is Scroobius Pip and why do we care what he or she says?
Apart from being a respected artist in his own right, I think it is more the message that is important and not who said it. The actual quote includes about 20 other bands who are "just a band" but people tend to put on ridiculous pedestals.
Oh I see another minor act, who no one has heard of outside some student club trying to get publicity, if someone is the greatest then up on a pedestal they go, its the natural progression, no matter what someone with a made up name says.
Thou shalt not put musicians and recording artists on ridiculous pedestals no matter how great they are or were. The Beatles: Were just a band.
And who the fuck is Scroobius Pip and why do we care what he or she says?
Apart from being a respected artist in his own right, I think it is more the message that is important and not who said it. The actual quote includes about 20 other bands who are "just a band" but people tend to put on ridiculous pedestals.
Oh I see another minor act, who no one has heard of outside some student club trying to get publicity, if someone is the greatest then up on a pedestal they go, its the natural progression, no matter what someone with a made up name says.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Scroobius Pip is certainly not a minor act.
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
Sorry Soundas but The Stones (Keef) wrote better and more songs than the Beatles !
LOL They also had more hair.
If memory serves, by the time Jagger/Richards wrote their first song the Beatles had already written something like 6 number 1 singles, 2 or 3 albums, a film soundtrack, oh and tossed off a song in 5 minutes that handed the Stones their first hit.
If I didn't know better I might think you were trying to wind-up Soundas
Not a WUM at all, Soundas said 'I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.' The Stones got their break form Lennon and McCartney, undoubtedly, but the Stones Catalogue of top quality material in the late 60's and all the 70's knocks Lennon/McCartney and Harrison was into second place. FWIW - I love Lennon and McCartney and without doubt the biggest influence on modern pop music was the Beatles, no argument, however the greatest song writer of the 20th Century was and is Keith Richards, no one comes close to the quality and quantity of his creativity and recording excellence, no one.
THE NATION'S favourite song lyric is "Imagine", by John Lennon, according to an unorthodox poll by the BBC to mark National Poetry Day. Many Lennon and McCartney songs were nominated by the public but Lennon's solo hit from 1971 was the clear winner.
Less clear was how many votes it takes to make it into the top ten and whether fans were colluding to vote repeatedly for their favourites. Robbie Williams, former Take That member, had two songs in the all-time top ten and an obscure 1978 B-side by John Otway made it to number seven. Bob Dylan, whose lyrics appear in anthologies of poetry and are analysed by academics, failed to make the top ten.
The BBC refused to say how many people took part in the vote but said it would have been impossible to rig. "We took ... postcodes when they voted and checked with the John Otway votes to make sure they didn't all come from the same place," said a BBC spokeswoman.
"Most of John Otway's votes came by e-mail and it seems he has a lot of fans who are online. There were also a lot of people who voted for 'Beware of the Flowers' who didn't know who had written it." Otway, who is a favourite on the festival circuit and sometimes uses the comedian Attila the Stockbroker to translate his songs into German for any German tourists in his audience, was ecstatic when The Independent told him the news yesterday.
"Wow, I beat Dylan," he said. "That's brilliant. I think it must come from playing over 3,000 gigs and singing 'Beware of the Flowers' nearly every night. I obviously have incredibly loyal fans, which is what happens when you have the kind of micro-stardom that I have."
Thou shalt not put musicians and recording artists on ridiculous pedestals no matter how great they are or were. The Beatles: Were just a band.
And who the fuck is Scroobius Pip and why do we care what he or she says?
Apart from being a respected artist in his own right, I think it is more the message that is important and not who said it. The actual quote includes about 20 other bands who are "just a band" but people tend to put on ridiculous pedestals.
Oh I see another minor act, who no one has heard of outside some student club trying to get publicity, if someone is the greatest then up on a pedestal they go, its the natural progression, no matter what someone with a made up name says.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Scroobius Pip is certainly not a minor act.
But he is Millwall so any opinion he has is null and void
Thou shalt not put musicians and recording artists on ridiculous pedestals no matter how great they are or were. The Beatles: Were just a band.
And who the fuck is Scroobius Pip and why do we care what he or she says?
Apart from being a respected artist in his own right, I think it is more the message that is important and not who said it. The actual quote includes about 20 other bands who are "just a band" but people tend to put on ridiculous pedestals.
Oh I see another minor act, who no one has heard of outside some student club trying to get publicity, if someone is the greatest then up on a pedestal they go, its the natural progression, no matter what someone with a made up name says.
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
That's not what I said though was it. I said that if the Beatles hadn't existed then some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation.
Just to clarify, I do not agree that the Beatles are overrated. As Henry said, it's all context. Your first post gives the impression that modern music would no exist without the Beatles, or that those born after their time are not allowed to express an opinion on their music and should be grateful that people like you have appointed themselves custodians of musical history.
Mmmmm......appointed myself as custodian of musical history, how very interesting. No......only of The Beatles Fiish.....only of The Beatles.
On the subject of 'good, bad, talented, average etc' musicians/bands/singers. Spending some time in a music academy, I had the chance to witness examples of all of the above. I was moved/touched by a few of them,..
Hope you've reported it.
Wrote a song about it, got this Harvey guy to produce it
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
Sorry Soundas but The Stones (Keef) wrote better and more songs than the Beatles !
LOL They also had more hair.
If memory serves, by the time Jagger/Richards wrote their first song the Beatles had already written something like 6 number 1 singles, 2 or 3 albums, a film soundtrack, oh and tossed off a song in 5 minutes that handed the Stones their first hit.
If I didn't know better I might think you were trying to wind-up Soundas
Not a WUM at all, Soundas said 'I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.' The Stones got their break form Lennon and McCartney, undoubtedly, but the Stones Catalogue of top quality material in the late 60's and all the 70's knocks Lennon/McCartney and Harrison was into second place. FWIW - I love Lennon and McCartney and without doubt the biggest influence on modern pop music was the Beatles, no argument, however the greatest song writer of the 20th Century was and is Keith Richards, no one comes close to the quality and quantity of his creativity and recording excellence, no one.
I really want to get my teeth stuck into this discussion, but I am stuck at work and straight out tonight to see Squeeze. So you will just have to make do with "Bollocks". (Just kidding) I would like to say, I think you are being a little disingenuous towards Mick Jagger by referencing only Keith. (For example by Keith's own admission Brown Sugar was primarily Mick's song).
The interesting comment for me was when you specified "late 60's and 70's" when referencing the Stones catalogue. Therein lies the crux imo. Speak later
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
Sorry Soundas but The Stones (Keef) wrote better and more songs than the Beatles !
LOL They also had more hair.
If memory serves, by the time Jagger/Richards wrote their first song the Beatles had already written something like 6 number 1 singles, 2 or 3 albums, a film soundtrack, oh and tossed off a song in 5 minutes that handed the Stones their first hit.
If I didn't know better I might think you were trying to wind-up Soundas
Not a WUM at all, Soundas said 'I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.' The Stones got their break form Lennon and McCartney, undoubtedly, but the Stones Catalogue of top quality material in the late 60's and all the 70's knocks Lennon/McCartney and Harrison was into second place. FWIW - I love Lennon and McCartney and without doubt the biggest influence on modern pop music was the Beatles, no argument, however the greatest song writer of the 20th Century was and is Keith Richards, no one comes close to the quality and quantity of his creativity and recording excellence, no one.
I really want to get my teeth stuck into this discussion, but I am stuck at work and straight out tonight to see Squeeze. So you will just have to make do with "Bollocks". (Just kidding) I would like to say, I think you are being a little disingenuous towards Mick Jagger by referencing only Keith. (For example by Keith's own admission Brown Sugar was primarily Mick's song).
The interesting comment for me was when you specified "late60's and 70's" when referencing the Stones catalogue. Therein lies the crux imo. Speak later
Thats because Soundas original comment mentioned the Beatles era and Lennon was alive then. The Stones (Keef) wrote some great stuff in every decade. RE Jagger, he wrote Brown Sugar, after Keef had shown him Open G tuning on the guitar, and that is the only song that you can find that was Jaggers, almost all the Stones songs start and end with Keef, from the original idea to the final mix, not Mick. Have you heard Jaggers solo material, it's jank? Jaggers contribution was mostly final lyrics and as the greatest front man in any band, ever IMHO, not a bad entry on your CV, and he always pushed for different directions with the Stones, but they always come back to their blues and RnB roots, one of the many reasons why they are the worlds greatest rock n roll band.
I'm not for a second doubting their importance in the popular music canon. But they were amongst the first wave of bands using technologies that had just been introduced anyway - they just happened to be the most high-profile, with a budget to match. These technologies would have revolutionised music anyway, and were indeed doing so. They still, to their immense credit, never stopped innovating - they never rested on their laurels - and that for me is their greatest achievement - they solidified an ideal of ambition and experimentation within the new popular narrative.
That's the point. Their studio, their label, their producers, their managers, the manufacturers of their equipment were all just as pioneering. If it wasn't Paul, Ringo, John & George it would have easily been 4 other people.
It could easily have been four other people. A strange argument.
You might as well say the same about Hillary and Everest or Bannister's four minute mile or countless other "firsts".
Bill Haley and the Comets probably deserve a footnote in history. The first rock 'n rollers I can remember. Remember all the ripped up cinema seats when Rock around the Clock film came out. I didn't much like them by the way which is the point of the thread.
It's not really an argument, just a logical conclusion. Hillary wasn't even the first human to climb Everest, probably, just the first person recorded, and even that faces a bit of dispute. Likewise I'm sure someone would have run a 4 minute mile very soon after Bannister.
The point is if The Beatles had never been formed, some other band would have been the first intercontinental pop sensation that every other band would be compared to and influenced by. That isn't diminishing their achievements, just stating a fact. It's the reason why Alexander Graham Bell is credited with inventing the telephone even though an identical device was being produced at the same time. Someone has to be first and make the history books.
Ooooooh.....”a logical conclusion” that some other band would have achieved what they did? Wow, that’s a bold statement Fiish.....I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.
Sorry Soundas but The Stones (Keef) wrote better and more songs than the Beatles !
LOL They also had more hair.
If memory serves, by the time Jagger/Richards wrote their first song the Beatles had already written something like 6 number 1 singles, 2 or 3 albums, a film soundtrack, oh and tossed off a song in 5 minutes that handed the Stones their first hit.
If I didn't know better I might think you were trying to wind-up Soundas
Not a WUM at all, Soundas said 'I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.' The Stones got their break form Lennon and McCartney, undoubtedly, but the Stones Catalogue of top quality material in the late 60's and all the 70's knocks Lennon/McCartney and Harrison was into second place. FWIW - I love Lennon and McCartney and without doubt the biggest influence on modern pop music was the Beatles, no argument, however the greatest song writer of the 20th Century was and is Keith Richards, no one comes close to the quality and quantity of his creativity and recording excellence, no one.
I really want to get my teeth stuck into this discussion, but I am stuck at work and straight out tonight to see Squeeze. So you will just have to make do with "Bollocks". (Just kidding) I would like to say, I think you are being a little disingenuous towards Mick Jagger by referencing only Keith. (For example by Keith's own admission Brown Sugar was primarily Mick's song).
The interesting comment for me was when you specified "late60's and 70's" when referencing the Stones catalogue. Therein lies the crux imo. Speak later
Thats because Soundas original comment mentioned the Beatles era and Lennon was alive then. The Stones (Keef) wrote some great stuff in every decade. RE Jagger, he wrote Brown Sugar, after Keef had shown him Open G tuning on the guitar, and that is the only song that you can find that was Jaggers, almost all the Stones songs start and end with Keef, from the original idea to the final mix, not Mick. Have you heard Jaggers solo material, it's jank? Jaggers contribution was mostly final lyrics and as the greatest front man in any band, ever IMHO, not a bad entry on your CV, and he always pushed for different directions with the Stones, but they always come back to their blues and RnB roots, one of the many reasons why they are the worlds greatest rock n roll band.
I picked up on the late 60's thing mainly because, although they made some shit hot singles that were the equal of the Beatles during the '63 to '67 period, they were very much hanging on to the Beatles coat tails in terms of innovation and originality. In particular they couldn't get anywhere near the Beatles on album. My personal view is that the Beatles peaked with Pepper and thereafter began to tread water. If you'd have asked me who I thought was best after '68 I would at that time have said the Stones. In fact it was only much later as the Beatles legacy became diluted and received wisdom became that the Stones were "the greatest rock and roll band in the world" that it began to grate with me that the Beatles weren't getting their due.
I still can't quite agree with the Richards/Jagger songwriting ratio, but you maybe have some insider knowledge that I don't have. I would just say that Keith's solo stuff is better than Micks' but otherwise piss ordinary.
I for one don't see the contention that they always come back to their blues and r'n'b roots as a selling point - quite the opposite, and in a way it exposes their limitations vis a vis the Beatles.
If it sounds like I have a downer on the Stones I don't. I love them. Who is better in terms of them and the Beatles is purely subjective.
TBH I am more concerned that the significance of the Beatles musically and culturally is being diluted over time. Not by you obviously. But we've gone off tangent so that's for another post
Not a WUM at all, Soundas said 'I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.' The Stones got their break form Lennon and McCartney, undoubtedly, but the Stones Catalogue of top quality material in the late 60's and all the 70's knocks Lennon/McCartney and Harrison was into second place. FWIW - I love Lennon and McCartney and without doubt the biggest influence on modern pop music was the Beatles, no argument, however the greatest song writer of the 20th Century was and is Keith Richards, no one comes close to the quality and quantity of his creativity and recording excellence, no one.
I really want to get my teeth stuck into this discussion, but I am stuck at work and straight out tonight to see Squeeze. So you will just have to make do with "Bollocks". (Just kidding) I would like to say, I think you are being a little disingenuous towards Mick Jagger by referencing only Keith. (For example by Keith's own admission Brown Sugar was primarily Mick's song).
The interesting comment for me was when you specified "late60's and 70's" when referencing the Stones catalogue. Therein lies the crux imo. Speak later
Thats because Soundas original comment mentioned the Beatles era and Lennon was alive then. The Stones (Keef) wrote some great stuff in every decade. RE Jagger, he wrote Brown Sugar, after Keef had shown him Open G tuning on the guitar, and that is the only song that you can find that was Jaggers, almost all the Stones songs start and end with Keef, from the original idea to the final mix, not Mick. Have you heard Jaggers solo material, it's jank? Jaggers contribution was mostly final lyrics and as the greatest front man in any band, ever IMHO, not a bad entry on your CV, and he always pushed for different directions with the Stones, but they always come back to their blues and RnB roots, one of the many reasons why they are the worlds greatest rock n roll band.
I picked up on the late 60's thing mainly because, although they made some shit hot singles that were the equal of the Beatles during the '63 to '67 period, they were very much hanging on to the Beatles coat tails in terms of innovation and originality. In particular they couldn't get anywhere near the Beatles on album. My personal view is that the Beatles peaked with Pepper and thereafter began to tread water. If you'd have asked me who I thought was best after '68 I would at that time have said the Stones. In fact it was only much later as the Beatles legacy became diluted and received wisdom became that the Stones were "the greatest rock and roll band in the world" that it began to grate with me that the Beatles weren't getting their due.
I still can't quite agree with the Richards/Jagger songwriting ratio, but you maybe have some insider knowledge that I don't have. I would just say that Keith's solo stuff is better than Micks' but otherwise piss ordinary.
I for one don't see the contention that they always come back to their blues and r'n'b roots as a selling point - quite the opposite, and in a way it exposes their limitations vis a vis the Beatles.
If it sounds like I have a downer on the Stones I don't. I love them. Who is better in terms of them and the Beatles is purely subjective.
TBH I am more concerned that the significance of the Beatles musically and culturally is being diluted over time. Not by you obviously. But we've gone off tangent so that's for another post
I think we agree on a lot, and of course all music is subjective, bandslike The Smiths and the Stone Roses, for me I file both under 'Utter Shiite', cos I dont like the noise they make, its pelt, others do I get that, but I think its more to do with the time they had listening to it than the quality of the actual music. The Beatles started it (bandwise), and I loved most of their stuff, and I particularly admire Lennons work, as a creative artist I think he was head and shoulders above McCartney who was more the natural musician IMO. Re The Stones, yes they were behind the Beatles at the beginning, all bands were, but its bit like the Blur V Oasis thing from the 90's (not that either are comparable to the Beatles or The Stones) Blur are more creative in an avant grade way as were the Beatles, wheres Oasis were about pure Rock N Roll if you like. And it is Ok to like both bands, which I do (The Stones and Beatles). When people say they think the Beatles or the Stones were crap, then I disregard everything they say about music from then on, their opinion doesn't matter from that point. The Stones best album? Exile on Main Street from the early 70's is their best work and for me, the best album by any band ever.
Oasis, IMO they were shit after What's the story morning glory but so many people treat those fuckers like god. I went to knebworth years ago and they were great although I mainly went to see OCS support them. Living in Perth now there seems to be a new generation of fuckwit 20-25yo expats that are stuck on Oasis like jizz on a teenagers porno mag
Thou shalt not put musicians and recording artists on ridiculous pedestals no matter how great they are or were. The Beatles: Were just a band.
And who the fuck is Scroobius Pip and why do we care what he or she says?
Apart from being a respected artist in his own right, I think it is more the message that is important and not who said it. The actual quote includes about 20 other bands who are "just a band" but people tend to put on ridiculous pedestals.
Oh I see another minor act, who no one has heard of outside some student club trying to get publicity, if someone is the greatest then up on a pedestal they go, its the natural progression, no matter what someone with a made up name says.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Scroobius Pip is certainly not a minor act.
But he is Millwall so any opinion he has is null and void
IMO, I think the fact that The Beatles sold over 500 million albums proves they are the very definition of overrated. As singers, none of them stand out and the same goes for them as musicians, I doubt any of the would make the top 5 in thier field in any era.
Comments
Just to clarify, I do not agree that the Beatles are overrated. As Henry said, it's all context. Your first post gives the impression that modern music would no exist without the Beatles, or that those born after their time are not allowed to express an opinion on their music and should be grateful that people like you have appointed themselves custodians of musical history.
Of course it would, it always has and always will.
Spending some time in a music academy, I had the chance to witness examples of all of the above.
I was moved/touched by a few of them, and in my personal experience it had very little to do with how 'good' they or there music was.
It had everything to do with where I was coming from, and what boxes they ticked for me on the day.
The worshiping of 'good' music is what led Rossini to say about Wagners music: "his music is much better than what it sounds"...
They also had more hair.
If memory serves, by the time Jagger/Richards wrote their first song the Beatles had already written something like 6 number 1 singles, 2 or 3 albums, a film soundtrack, oh and tossed off a song in 5 minutes that handed the Stones their first hit.
If I didn't know better I might think you were trying to wind-up Soundas
Before that the Stones were a covers band. A very good covers band but just that. They even did a Lennon/McCartney song.
And even when they did start writing stuff much of it was a terrible steal (the last time for example)
The Stones are a far better band for me but then again they didn't break up in 1970. The four individual Beatles were still churning our great songs (maybe I'm amazed, photograph) after the break up.
FWIW - I love Lennon and McCartney and without doubt the biggest influence on modern pop music was the Beatles, no argument, however the greatest song writer of the 20th Century was and is Keith Richards, no one comes close to the quality and quantity of his creativity and recording excellence, no one.
Oh I see another minor act, who no one has heard of outside some student club trying to get publicity, if someone is the greatest then up on a pedestal they go, its the natural progression, no matter what someone with a made up name says.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-songwriters#chuck-berry
Radiohead - I just don't get them.
Vote early, vote often.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/john-otway-a-better-lyricist-than-dylan-743897.html
THE NATION'S favourite song lyric is "Imagine", by John Lennon, according to an unorthodox poll by the BBC to mark National Poetry Day. Many Lennon and McCartney songs were nominated by the public but Lennon's solo hit from 1971 was the clear winner.
Less clear was how many votes it takes to make it into the top ten and whether fans were colluding to vote repeatedly for their favourites. Robbie Williams, former Take That member, had two songs in the all-time top ten and an obscure 1978 B-side by John Otway made it to number seven. Bob Dylan, whose lyrics appear in anthologies of poetry and are analysed by academics, failed to make the top ten.
The BBC refused to say how many people took part in the vote but said it would have been impossible to rig. "We took ... postcodes when they voted and checked with the John Otway votes to make sure they didn't all come from the same place," said a BBC spokeswoman.
"Most of John Otway's votes came by e-mail and it seems he has a lot of fans who are online. There were also a lot of people who voted for 'Beware of the Flowers' who didn't know who had written it." Otway, who is a favourite on the festival circuit and sometimes uses the comedian Attila the Stockbroker to translate his songs into German for any German tourists in his audience, was ecstatic when The Independent told him the news yesterday.
"Wow, I beat Dylan," he said. "That's brilliant. I think it must come from playing over 3,000 gigs and singing 'Beware of the Flowers' nearly every night. I obviously have incredibly loyal fans, which is what happens when you have the kind of micro-stardom that I have."
Nation's favourite lyrics
1. Imagine John Lennon
2. Angels Robbie Williams
3. Bohemian Rhapsody Queen
4. I am the Walrus The Beatles
5. Millennium Robbie Williams
6. Yesterday The Beatles
7. Beware of the Flowers John Otway
8. Sit Down James
9. Nights in White Satin Moody Blues
10. Stardust Hoagy Carmichael
No......only of The Beatles Fiish.....only of The Beatles.
So you will just have to make do with "Bollocks".
(Just kidding)
I would like to say, I think you are being a little disingenuous towards Mick Jagger by referencing only Keith.
(For example by Keith's own admission Brown Sugar was primarily Mick's song).
The interesting comment for me was when you specified "late 60's and 70's" when referencing the Stones catalogue.
Therein lies the crux imo.
Speak later
RE Jagger, he wrote Brown Sugar, after Keef had shown him Open G tuning on the guitar, and that is the only song that you can find that was Jaggers, almost all the Stones songs start and end with Keef, from the original idea to the final mix, not Mick. Have you heard Jaggers solo material, it's jank?
Jaggers contribution was mostly final lyrics and as the greatest front man in any band, ever IMHO, not a bad entry on your CV, and he always pushed for different directions with the Stones, but they always come back to their blues and RnB roots, one of the many reasons why they are the worlds greatest rock n roll band.
In particular they couldn't get anywhere near the Beatles on album.
My personal view is that the Beatles peaked with Pepper and thereafter began to tread water.
If you'd have asked me who I thought was best after '68 I would at that time have said the Stones.
In fact it was only much later as the Beatles legacy became diluted and received wisdom became that the Stones were "the greatest rock and roll band in the world" that it began to grate with me that the Beatles weren't getting their due.
I still can't quite agree with the Richards/Jagger songwriting ratio, but you maybe have some insider knowledge that I don't have.
I would just say that Keith's solo stuff is better than Micks' but otherwise piss ordinary.
I for one don't see the contention that they always come back to their blues and r'n'b roots as a selling point - quite the opposite, and in a way it exposes their limitations vis a vis the Beatles.
If it sounds like I have a downer on the Stones I don't.
I love them.
Who is better in terms of them and the Beatles is purely subjective.
TBH I am more concerned that the significance of the Beatles musically and culturally is being diluted over time. Not by you obviously.
But we've gone off tangent so that's for another post
Not a WUM at all, Soundas said 'I refer again to the phenomenal amount of song writing they produced in such a short space of time.....there was no one around then or since that has come even close.' The Stones got their break form Lennon and McCartney, undoubtedly, but the Stones Catalogue of top quality material in the late 60's and all the 70's knocks Lennon/McCartney and Harrison was into second place.
FWIW - I love Lennon and McCartney and without doubt the biggest influence on modern pop music was the Beatles, no argument, however the greatest song writer of the 20th Century was and is Keith Richards, no one comes close to the quality and quantity of his creativity and recording excellence, no one.
I really want to get my teeth stuck into this discussion, but I am stuck at work and straight out tonight to see Squeeze.
So you will just have to make do with "Bollocks".
(Just kidding)
I would like to say, I think you are being a little disingenuous towards Mick Jagger by referencing only Keith.
(For example by Keith's own admission Brown Sugar was primarily Mick's song).
The interesting comment for me was when you specified "late 60's and 70's" when referencing the Stones catalogue.
Therein lies the crux imo.
Speak later
Thats because Soundas original comment mentioned the Beatles era and Lennon was alive then. The Stones (Keef) wrote some great stuff in every decade.
RE Jagger, he wrote Brown Sugar, after Keef had shown him Open G tuning on the guitar, and that is the only song that you can find that was Jaggers, almost all the Stones songs start and end with Keef, from the original idea to the final mix, not Mick. Have you heard Jaggers solo material, it's jank?
Jaggers contribution was mostly final lyrics and as the greatest front man in any band, ever IMHO, not a bad entry on your CV, and he always pushed for different directions with the Stones, but they always come back to their blues and RnB roots, one of the many reasons why they are the worlds greatest rock n roll band.
I picked up on the late 60's thing mainly because, although they made some shit hot singles that were the equal of the Beatles during the '63 to '67 period, they were very much hanging on to the Beatles coat tails in terms of innovation and originality.
In particular they couldn't get anywhere near the Beatles on album.
My personal view is that the Beatles peaked with Pepper and thereafter began to tread water.
If you'd have asked me who I thought was best after '68 I would at that time have said the Stones.
In fact it was only much later as the Beatles legacy became diluted and received wisdom became that the Stones were "the greatest rock and roll band in the world" that it began to grate with me that the Beatles weren't getting their due.
I still can't quite agree with the Richards/Jagger songwriting ratio, but you maybe have some insider knowledge that I don't have.
I would just say that Keith's solo stuff is better than Micks' but otherwise piss ordinary.
I for one don't see the contention that they always come back to their blues and r'n'b roots as a selling point - quite the opposite, and in a way it exposes their limitations vis a vis the Beatles.
If it sounds like I have a downer on the Stones I don't.
I love them.
Who is better in terms of them and the Beatles is purely subjective.
TBH I am more concerned that the significance of the Beatles musically and culturally is being diluted over time. Not by you obviously.
But we've gone off tangent so that's for another post
I think we agree on a lot, and of course all music is subjective, bandslike The Smiths and the Stone Roses, for me I file both under 'Utter Shiite', cos I dont like the noise they make, its pelt, others do I get that, but I think its more to do with the time they had listening to it than the quality of the actual music.
The Beatles started it (bandwise), and I loved most of their stuff, and I particularly admire Lennons work, as a creative artist I think he was head and shoulders above McCartney who was more the natural musician IMO.
Re The Stones, yes they were behind the Beatles at the beginning, all bands were, but its bit like the Blur V Oasis thing from the 90's (not that either are comparable to the Beatles or The Stones) Blur are more creative in an avant grade way as were the Beatles, wheres Oasis were about pure Rock N Roll if you like. And it is Ok to like both bands, which I do (The Stones and Beatles).
When people say they think the Beatles or the Stones were crap, then I disregard everything they say about music from then on, their opinion doesn't matter from that point.
The Stones best album? Exile on Main Street from the early 70's is their best work and for me, the best album by any band ever.
Living in Perth now there seems to be a new generation of fuckwit 20-25yo expats that are stuck on Oasis like jizz on a teenagers porno mag