This thread is now back in Cafè Society. If you or anyone has a problem with the OP open a pit thread. The actual topic of this thread is being actively and appropriately discussed and we will keep a close eye on it.
Again, if you have choice words for the OP, open a pit thread. If anyone has concerns about the moderation PM a mod or take it to ATMB.
Thanks
Open a pit thread if you need to respond to the OP. Don’t do it here.
To be scrupulously fair, their cover of Twist And Shout only stalled out at #2 because Can’t Buy Me Love was at #1 – when the rest of the Top 5 was, uh, She Loves You by Lennon and McCartney, and I Want To Hold Your Hand by Lennon and McCartney, and Please Please Me by Lennon and McCartney.
Giants, Earth, Days.
Henry Ford was only a car maker.
Albert Einstein was merely a physicist.
Pablo Picasso was just a painter.
Monty Python were just another comedy troupe.
First we were in Cafe Society…then we were in the Pit…now we’re back in Cafe Society again…
Woo. I’m dizzy. (Pukes)
(Hands Ukulele Ike a ginger ale)
Yeah some things were wrong and then they were OK and then they were wrong again. It’s like vatican 2 in here.
Ok- I’ve tried to be good natured about it, but seriously- start an ATMB thread about it or PM a mod
I think you can build a case that the Beatles are over-rated based on quotes like this. Sgt. Pepper (1967) wasn’t the first concept album, though it’s sometimes remembered as such. Pet Sounds (1966) by the Beach Boys preceded it. But since the Beatles dominated 1960s music, a lot of the innovations occurring during that decade - and which would have happened anyway - get credited to and attached to the Beatles.
I’m not uncomfortable with that actually. Lots of quotes are attributed to Winston Churchill or Mark Twain that they never said, but could be imagined to say. If you aren’t a huge music fan or specialist, it’s easy just to attach a lot of developments in popular music to the Beatles. Developments for which they deserve partial but not sole credit. And to the extent that the Beatles had a hand in pretty much every major rock development of the time you can once again argue about wholes exceeding sums of parts.
Also, I’ll opine that Sgt Peppers has aged better than Pet Sounds, based on my superficial listening.
I’ll agree with you on that. And here’s an interesting article that also makes the case that Pet Sounds was the first rock concept album, but notes that outside of rock many artists had made coherent albums around a theme intended to be listened to as a whole instead of as many parts.
But I would say two things to both of you. First, both Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper’s in their final forms were a bunch of songs thrown together, some of which cannot be called part of a coherent whole. Second, Blonde on Blonde was released the very same day as Pet Sounds. And I’d go on to mention Bringing It All Back Home and Highway 61 Revisited along with Rubber Soul, which preceded all three and are just as well designed to be coherent albums. (Rubber Soul had no UK singles on it, either.)
(Exapno: This is for you too) You mean you might try to build a case that Todd Rundgren overrates them?
I love it as part of the Brian Wilson oeuvre, but Pet sounds was a bomb, a dud. It had no influence except among musicians, and is not coherent at all. The music industry did not shift one iota in response, believe me. Bob Dylans records are basically a record of a creative genius putting his poetry to music. Not in the conversation for this.
Perception becomes reality at some point talking about public works. There is a perception that Sgt Pepper is a coherent whole, for a few reasons, not least of which is the band’s communicating with each other at their peak; secondly there were themes running through the LP, that are coherent, public vs private, loneliness etc. Third, it was received as a whole by the people responding to those themes. And when the industry changed, as it did, it was because of that record and not another one.
Identifying forerunners and successors is academic. I trust Todd. Also, I was very young, but I was there.
Rundgren was right about the American market making albums by putting filler to singles. The UK market didn’t do that. They considered them separate things, and also issued lots of EPs, virtually unknown in America. You can’t look at anything The Beatles did by American market standards. The quote of his you cited is mostly gibberish.
Other than that, I’m obviously in the camp that they were hugely influential and were leaders in almost everything, except the stuff Dylan did first.
This calls to mind something I was going to post earlier when our (shudder) thread starter was still hanging around. Back when I used to debate in the Apple forums on Slashdot (shudder again), you’d get a lot of arguments like this: “Well, Apple didn’t actually invent the mouse or the GUI or desktop publishing, so to claim they ‘innovated’ anything is a lie. Apple didn’t invent the MP3 player, so the iPod is really nothing special.” I recognize the same kind of reasoning in a lot of the OP’s arguments, and it’s a terribly limited point of view, chiefly useful to those interested in scoring points rather than understanding an issue.
The Beatles weren’t necessarily the first to put a sitar or a Baroque-style string octet or backwards tapes on a pop song, but the manner in which they did it — the fact that these experiments were done in the service of extraordinarily well-written songs, and that the songs were always the first consideration — made it a bona fide innovation, a signal to the rest of the pop world that rock and roll could encompass far more than its original pioneers had imagined. The Beatles had the audacity to experiment, and they had the discipline and instinct for solid craftsmanship (not to mention a crack production team) that gave their experimental ideas an air of legitimacy and inevitability; those songs had to sound that way.
So whether the Beatles thought of something first (and sometimes they did; I don’t think anyone put backwards vocals on a song before “Rain”) or not is beside the point. The fact is they synthesized, and completely made their own, a stunning variety of influences, and that no other musical artists evolved as much as they did in such a short amount of time. (The recording of everything from Help! through Sgt. Pepper encompassed about 26 months.)
I think Todd was talking about a prior generation of artists doing that, not the Beatles. Also the quote probably should have said “no singles on it” instead of “those singles on it”
The market being “the UK” didn’t mean that a Motown LP was going to be any good, and no issuance of "EP"s was a solution to such a condition.
Todd was talking about the world record industry I think, wherein the American market had a lot of clout and influence. I think the Beatles were in business to sell as many records in the US as they could. It was the name of the game. I don’t know what you mean by “American market standards” or what is gibberish.
The Beatles were a terrible live band. I find it hard to rank them very high compared to other 60’s bands.
They did good studio recordings. But half the material on their later albums can’t be played live. Theres too many studio effects and tricks that would never work on stage.
Judging them on performances during Beatlemania isn’t valid. They became a band playing in Hamburg and Liverpool. Did you see them then?
Why would you hold it against them for making demanding complex music at some point in their career? That means they couldn’t play live? By what logic?
Yeah. I might build a case that Todd Rundgren overrated him during his impromptu speech. Also me, because I pretty much nod along with what he says.
When you are number 1 in your field all that is happening during the era tends to cling on to you. So you get disproportionate acclaim during innovative periods and disproportionate brickbats during schlocky ones.
That’s basically all I got.
Amazon Prime has given me access to lots of stuff I wouldn’t otherwise listen to. Pet Sounds was pretty impressive for its day. Wouldn’t It Be Nice is a great tune. There is a theme running through the album: the theme is Brian Wilson’s insecurities. There is an alternative Planet Earth, billions of light years from this one where the Beatles never existed and the Beach Boys are acknowledged as the greatest rock band ever.
::SHUDDER::
It’s just next door to Lovecraft-Earth.
Maybe they were better before Beatlemania. Never seen any video from those days.
Studio albums use too many session players. Doing take after take. Then they use all these production tricks and spend days mixing it.
YMMV I prefer bands that excel at performing live music. The most important award a musician can win is Entertainer of the Year. They earn that award by playing live and putting on fantastic stage shows.
My feeling is, frankly, who cares if they could or couldn’t play live? (And they certainly could if you see those Hamburg shows.) It’s not like I’m going to go see them in concert ever. I consume their music as a finished product, and I, personally, don’t care what studio tricks bands use to get there as long as the final result is emotive and cohesive and represents their vision. Hence me not giving a shit when people get into arguments about modern music and who plays and doesn’t play their instruments. I just care about final product.
I’m a little surprised by the Pet Sounds comments, though. I find that album getting better and better every time I listen to it. I personally find it aging better than Sgt. Pepper and, while I’ll take the Beatles over the Beach Boys, I’ll take Pet Sounds over any Beatles album.
Watch this: The Beatles- (Drop In Swedish TV show 1963) - YouTube
They were great live performers. Look at Ringo rockin out at the end. How great the sound and grooves are. They do just fine live.
They were too popular for the PA’s of their day. Look at early videos of, say, Free or Led Zep - Plant and Rogers are holding two mics. Because even a few years later, PA’s were still so small that they had to set up two of them to get the volume up. Add the extra volume of the screaming fans and pelting with jelly babies/beans, and how do you think you’d sound?