SkynetV4
Mildly Dipped
The Beatles are too corny and fresa "means strawberry in Spanish, too high class-sh and corny) for my taste. Even though I didn't grow up listening to these bands, I prefer Led Zeppelin, Rare Earth and The Beach Boys.
Better than The Beatles? Who?
- Thread starter alec
- Start date
Mildly Dipped
Madbringer said:
I was just joking around, I didn't literally mean that the Beatles were unquestionably and universally the greatest band ever and that everyone else should think so.
On the other hand, if you're trying to make some rational argument to convince me that the Beatles aren't unquestionably and universally the greatest band ever, you'd have better luck convincing the pope to become an atheist.
SkynetV4 said:
Not trying to challenge your opinion of them, but I just want to point out that there isn't any art, music, writing, or anything else in this world that isn't corny to someone. Name any artist in any field, and there are thousands of people willing to swear that they made the corniest, stupidest trash ever.
Montez said:
I'm not trying to convince anyone, just inputting my opinion. How could i possibly convince someone who's in love with the Beatles, like, say, Alec, that they suck in comparison with Negură Bunget, The Axis of Perdition, Mirrorthrone, Deathspell Omega or a ton of other bands I love. The effort would be made silly by the simple fact that The Beatles and the mentioned bands exist on completely different ends of the musical spectrum.
But if i would try, i'd ask, could the brits conceive such complex lyrical themes as DSO did? Could they produce so much sheer, pure atmosphere as Mirrorthrone and Negură Bunget do? Finally, how could they possibly recreate the feeling of cold, mercyless horror and terror The Axis of Perdition did on all of their releases?
Not to mention, The Beatles aren't even one bit as skilled musicians on the technical side as 90% of metal arists are.
;p
Nah, mang, it ain't a matter of taste. Some music transcends a thing like taste. Or fashion. Or trends. Or whatever.Madbringer said:
A lot of you guys, I think, do not possess the knowledge necessary to fully understand, fully grasp the significance of The Beatles. They're pioneers in every which way. To give you a good idea of what kind of a change they meant to music, you should (if you get the chance) listen to some of Meek's productions. They're the wildest, grooviest, most experimental shitzorz that proceeded The Beatles. And 99% of it is just that when compared to The Beatles: shit (Telstar being the wonderful exception).
Elvis sounds awesome, doesn't he? I'm serious, people, I love that man. His stuff is polished, stylized, clean and good. He's the best thing that 'proceeded' The Beatles and as a performer he could have taught them a lesson or two, but musically, artistically, creatively, even The King doesn't come any way near The Fab Four.
So isn't there better music out there than what they made? Sure there is. Just like all of you, I could easily name hundreds of songs that sound better, are catchier than the entire Fab Four oeuvre. Thing is, though: in most cases those songs would never have existed if it weren't for The Beatles. And contextually/historically spoken, that new catchy song doesn't mean shit (it's just a well-polished song manicured and pampered by 5 of the best producers in the world, a certain hit, etcetera).
It's really easy to do something really well if you have tons of good examples to look at.
It's hard as hell to come up with something beautiful and timeless when you are doing stuff that has never been done before, when you have no examples, nothing to mimick.
That's just sad, mang. Really. By naming these 'important' bands, you're kinda hinting that you have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.Madbringer said:
I'm talking about innovators, mang, innovators and canonical music/art. Sheesh.
Anyway, I think only Wooz kinda sorta grasped what I was aiming at with this thread, but nevermind. Move along.
alec said:
Of course it is. You can't expect someone to like a band, regardless of how much influence it had on future musicians. I don't like The Beatles, i respect them. Are they legendary? Sure thing. Are they epick? Definitely. Are they the greatest band in history? Maybe. Do i actually like their music? No, it's shit for me.
Sides, don't forget, even The Beatles drew inspiration from artists before them.
And what is sad, is that you give all the credit to one band, forgetting that they definitely did neither invent every kind of music, nor even explored every possibility of creating it.
alec said:
"And the Earth was without form and void. And darkness was upon the face of the deep. And on the seventh day, having created all forms of music on the planet, The Beatles rested."
Bullshit. I'm sure they ripped and raped from previous artists as much as any other band. But, being one of those unfortunates who has neither the cranial capacity to understand The Beatles nor the opposable digits to manipulate one of their albums, I live for the day when the appalling noises that The Beatles make on their instruments are outlawed, and the purchase of their records is a crime punishable by death, specifically: slow-death-by-grinding.
(Madbringer: spot the black metal reference. Go!)
Crowfoot said:
Cradle of Filth - A Bruise Upon the Silent Moon
sorry xdarkyrex
thats reducing music to something aesthetic and even a poor aesthetic at that ... offcourse no one is saying you should enjoy it ... but if you are intrested in art, expression and culture i feel one should at least admit to its influence and significance...
especially since its part of the history and reasons and now more then ever replicated/cut/chopped/reinterpreted for what drives todays creations/music ...
i'm guessing that if you love a sound your curious enough as to how that came about ...
as to the personal side of things ... introvertedly i'm guessing people can convince themselves to like all sorts of things
thats reducing music to something aesthetic and even a poor aesthetic at that ... offcourse no one is saying you should enjoy it ... but if you are intrested in art, expression and culture i feel one should at least admit to its influence and significance...
especially since its part of the history and reasons and now more then ever replicated/cut/chopped/reinterpreted for what drives todays creations/music ...
i'm guessing that if you love a sound your curious enough as to how that came about ...
as to the personal side of things ... introvertedly i'm guessing people can convince themselves to like all sorts of things
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
you cant get deeper than pm dawn
for example: in the presence of mirrors
first listen you think he is talking about looking at himself in a mirror and making observations about the mirror itself and his reflection
then you listen some more and you realize that its nothing relating to his perception of himself but actually an introspective look upon how others see himself.
then you realize that not only is it an introspective look upon others looking at him, but how he relates to the world at large due to that perception and that in the larger picture, how he sees himself is quite miniscule and unimportant.
take 2: take the song: the beautiful
first listen you hear a song about a guy singing a love song confessing that he likes her because of her looks.
then you listen some more and it becomes a criticisim of people who think that physical beauty is important weather its a sentient being or something else.
then you keep listening and realize that its none of those things, but rather a statement that beauty is a personal thing and you cannot judge beauty on what others think/say, but only on what you think.
imo, lyrically and for meaning, you go to them. nobody comes close.
for example: in the presence of mirrors
first listen you think he is talking about looking at himself in a mirror and making observations about the mirror itself and his reflection
then you listen some more and you realize that its nothing relating to his perception of himself but actually an introspective look upon how others see himself.
then you realize that not only is it an introspective look upon others looking at him, but how he relates to the world at large due to that perception and that in the larger picture, how he sees himself is quite miniscule and unimportant.
take 2: take the song: the beautiful
first listen you hear a song about a guy singing a love song confessing that he likes her because of her looks.
then you listen some more and it becomes a criticisim of people who think that physical beauty is important weather its a sentient being or something else.
then you keep listening and realize that its none of those things, but rather a statement that beauty is a personal thing and you cannot judge beauty on what others think/say, but only on what you think.
imo, lyrically and for meaning, you go to them. nobody comes close.
radnan said:
Well I p[ersonally love history and culutral htuffs and art, and I also am a big fan of the beatles, but if someone heard the beatles, had never heard of them before, and then decided they didnt like the sound, who am i to tell them they are wrong?
yes the beatles were influential, but dont confuse influence with enjoyability.
zioburosky13 said:
Come on...I love AC/DC and I'm not that much of a Beatles fan but...Come On...Seriously...( and Bon Scott pwns Brian Johnson HARD )
The Beatles knew how to make a nice, "simple" ( with complex arrangements ) but awesome melody better than any other pop/rock artist did or will ever do. It took them less than 10 years to accomplish what today's most influential artists will never have the chance to. It's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of being realistic.
metalboss44
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I hate beetles so I'd have to say grasshoppers.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
I really enjoy the Beatles, but I LOVE Pink Floyd. That shit will take you on a ride if your high. Beatles will too....but not as much.
These are just my humble opinions.
Art.
Art that is made just to be different usually ends up as something pathetic not even worth being placed in an art genre. To be different is not bad though, to be different is to try new ways and that's what most artists want to do at some point. But you will still need to make sure that people will like your new way of thinking (which is one piece of the art itself. Read on). Which is *probably* proven by the huge amount of "bad art".
Doing something that has been done before isn't bad either. If you can capture something that makes others think and feel, hooray! It's just that making something that is completely new (and good!) in a given context seems to be a task far more complex and sophisticated.
So, complexity huh?
I would say some radiohead songs are far more complex in structure than many other songs I hear on radio, (yet there has been complex songs around for ages and ages)! I can listen to Radiohead songs over and over again because I like how the structure makes me think (how did they put those pieces together!? etc) and how it puts me in a mood (And I barely know what their lyrics are about).
But,
The beatles does not do this to me. They feel more generic when I listen to them because there's just so many bands today that does a deviation of the same style. Of course I admit they feel far superior because it was them who did the the amount of original and yet appealing material. They managed to produce it once, and *gasp* the power of numbers in the crowd that liked it. We all know their history man!
So why do I still listen to Radiohead?
They manage to connect me with their music. They know how to package their art in good digestible pieces. Big enough to last longer, yet smooth so I won't grow tired from trying to figure them out. If they had decided to record the songs live in a coal mine I might not have enjoyed it as much (unless they had some darn good reason for it). Mixing is just another part of the package that helps to connect the art to myself. Just like good old pixel art and all the good feelings connected to it by old school games.
Somehow I feel good art is not all about originality or complexity in the bottom line. It's about how you tie it to your user. The mona lisa could have been painted by wooz today and gone by completely unnoticed. But since we know all about history and we know not many paintings looked like that back in the days we know that the context in which the mona lisa was painted in makes it great.
Art that is capturing something and is able to invoke a feeling or thought in others, that is art. It doesn't matter if it is totally new and strange or 2000 years old. It is all based on our assumptions.
So who wins then?
While I do enjoy Radiohead more I feel Beatles have been praised more by others. Beatles wins...
Just realised I was mumbling so much I forgot to answer your question!
Art.
Art that is made just to be different usually ends up as something pathetic not even worth being placed in an art genre. To be different is not bad though, to be different is to try new ways and that's what most artists want to do at some point. But you will still need to make sure that people will like your new way of thinking (which is one piece of the art itself. Read on). Which is *probably* proven by the huge amount of "bad art".
Doing something that has been done before isn't bad either. If you can capture something that makes others think and feel, hooray! It's just that making something that is completely new (and good!) in a given context seems to be a task far more complex and sophisticated.
So, complexity huh?
I would say some radiohead songs are far more complex in structure than many other songs I hear on radio, (yet there has been complex songs around for ages and ages)! I can listen to Radiohead songs over and over again because I like how the structure makes me think (how did they put those pieces together!? etc) and how it puts me in a mood (And I barely know what their lyrics are about).
But,
The beatles does not do this to me. They feel more generic when I listen to them because there's just so many bands today that does a deviation of the same style. Of course I admit they feel far superior because it was them who did the the amount of original and yet appealing material. They managed to produce it once, and *gasp* the power of numbers in the crowd that liked it. We all know their history man!
So why do I still listen to Radiohead?
They manage to connect me with their music. They know how to package their art in good digestible pieces. Big enough to last longer, yet smooth so I won't grow tired from trying to figure them out. If they had decided to record the songs live in a coal mine I might not have enjoyed it as much (unless they had some darn good reason for it). Mixing is just another part of the package that helps to connect the art to myself. Just like good old pixel art and all the good feelings connected to it by old school games.
Somehow I feel good art is not all about originality or complexity in the bottom line. It's about how you tie it to your user. The mona lisa could have been painted by wooz today and gone by completely unnoticed. But since we know all about history and we know not many paintings looked like that back in the days we know that the context in which the mona lisa was painted in makes it great.
Art that is capturing something and is able to invoke a feeling or thought in others, that is art. It doesn't matter if it is totally new and strange or 2000 years old. It is all based on our assumptions.
So who wins then?
While I do enjoy Radiohead more I feel Beatles have been praised more by others. Beatles wins...
Just realised I was mumbling so much I forgot to answer your question!
As I tried to say it is all about how we look at it. If I had no clue about the background of a song and listened to it I might just shuffle to the next which I feel is soo much better. But it might just have been based on that first one, but "perfected" in the sense that it suits me better. It makes me feel. Go ahead, make crap! Some day you might be famous. Even though you stole the idea and made it more crap. I mean, beatles certainly didn't invent music. They cannot be compared with just any music out there. It can however be said that beatles made a deviation of it that made a huge amount of people think and feel back in the days, and most can still connect to it. I believe there has been a few break throughs before that we just don't think as much about these days.
Speaking of radiohead the video of No surprises was incredibly hard to make
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLYo9ib88Ps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLYo9ib88Ps
There are a lot of better bands out there in my opinion than radiohead and The Beatles, although the Beatles have been reputed as selling a billion albums worldwide,
Personally my tastes range from frank zappa, john zorn, brian eno to fantomas, the mars volta, dillinger escape plan and converge(I'm actually a huge "mathcore" fan) bands like creation is cruxifixion, botch,ion dissonance, swarm of the lotus. Any freeform jazz musician and of coarse, ink spots(paper moon or we three is some of there best music). The beatles have just defined a era, and not many bands can lay claim to that. The fact that there greatest hits albums still peak the chart even after half the band members are dead is testament to how lasting they are.
Oh by the way this is my first post, I'm a huge fallout fan(been playing the game since it came out, i think i was oh... 9 years old at the time, a little young to be playing it but nonetheless i got to the end at that time) and I know this is off topic but fallout 3 looks to be a familiar experience(think mudcrabs)....an unfamiliar fallout experience.
Personally my tastes range from frank zappa, john zorn, brian eno to fantomas, the mars volta, dillinger escape plan and converge(I'm actually a huge "mathcore" fan) bands like creation is cruxifixion, botch,ion dissonance, swarm of the lotus. Any freeform jazz musician and of coarse, ink spots(paper moon or we three is some of there best music). The beatles have just defined a era, and not many bands can lay claim to that. The fact that there greatest hits albums still peak the chart even after half the band members are dead is testament to how lasting they are.
Oh by the way this is my first post, I'm a huge fallout fan(been playing the game since it came out, i think i was oh... 9 years old at the time, a little young to be playing it but nonetheless i got to the end at that time) and I know this is off topic but fallout 3 looks to be a familiar experience(think mudcrabs)....an unfamiliar fallout experience.
alec said:
Bah. In a billion years, people will look back and say, "That alec dude? He knew shit. And experimental books suck. We have now proved that using portals."
Questions like "better than The Beatles?" are inane because anything you compare to The Beatles is set up to lose if you make it a competition of being like The Beatles. Meanwhile Skinny Puppy is better at being like Skinny Puppy than The Beatles ever could, etc.