It’s hard to argue with someone who doesn’t seem to give a fuck about standing his ground. Cheesebuckethead hasn’t posted anything in here lately. Let’s see if he has the nerve to come back and make his point.
Awww, a buncha boomers angry someone dislikes their favorite band. Most people dislike the music I like too, but I don’t care since I don’t pretend my music changed society or is objectively anything. It is what it is, I’m not self- absorbed enough to think of it as anything more than the music I happen to like.
Same cannot be said for Beatles Fans.
Pretend? The Beatles objectively changed music. That is a fact completely independent of a given person’s perception of their quality or lack thereof. The sheer number of artists that cite them as an influence, the sheer number of studios taking note of their marketing and replicating it, the bleeding edge recording techniques studios offered them, which were then standardized in the industry, those all had an objective effect on the recording industry and modern music in general.
It doesn’t matter if you think they suck, were completely mediocre, or were god’s gift to mankind, trying to brush off The Beatles (or Michael Jackson, or many other super popular musicians) as if they didn’t change the face of music is like trying to claim nuclear weapons didn’t change global politics. It doesn’t matter if you think they’re good, bad, ephemeral, or eternal, they changed things for better or worse. This is not unique to the Beatles, nor is it ubiquitous to all bands. It’s something the Beatles can make claim to, but it doesn’t make them artistically better or worse for it.
I meant strictly musically objectively anything. See this thread where someone specifically said the OP didn’t know anything about music because they thought the Beatles suck. THIS is the attitude many people including myself can’t stand about overly entitled Beatles fans. I don’t think it’s a coincidence Boomers are well known for self-importance.
Again, I don’t really care whether people like my music or not, I like it because I like it. Beatles fans are the ones who care what you think about their band. My mother smugly points to how long “Morning with the Beatles” or whatever some radio show has been running as if it objectively makes them so amazing. Like all human beings, boomers’ brains stopped accepting new music en masse in their early 20’s (I’m 26 and I definitely can feel it becoming harder in my brain to like new music than when I was a teenager, so it’s not like I don’t understand the feeling), it is only because there are so many of them and they were a spoiled myopic generation that the Beatles got championed so hard. There will be a huge dropoff in Beatles wankery as more of them die.
No one’s musical snobbery is justified, just as in physics there is no privleged frame of reference and everyone mentioned in this thread will fade from public consciousness given enough time. I thought the post about Rolling Stone thinking all the best music was made in the 60’s and early 70’s was amazing…it’s absurd to think so, I think using Occam’s Razor it is more likely some aging music critics stopped appreciating new music after 1972 than that great music stopped being made 40 years ago.
I have to say, right now is a kind of fallow period in popular music. If LMFAO didn’t have their tongues stuck so hard in their cheeks it was coming out their ear, I’d be really depressed about it.
(Did you know that band’s got Berry Gordy’s kid and grandkid in it?)
That being said, there’s stuff that isn’t quite as popular that’s still pretty okay. And this sort of thing is cyclic. I’m a bit older than 26, and I’m still finding new stuff to like. So maybe it’s you. All I can say is that you have to respect the Beatles. They’re still relevant. Unlike, sadly, Elvis. You can still hear the Beatles in the latest Indie sort of thing, but the big E doesn’t really have much in the way of musical descendants. His inspirations do, but he doesn’t.
(John Petrucci)
This isn’t what’s happening at all. The OP is the one who’s angry because there are people on the planet who DO like the Beatles. And he hates them because of it. Something of an overreaction, I feel.
I like the Beatles and couldn’t give a toss who does or who doesn’t and I certainly wouldn’t be enraged enough to start a threat in the Pit declaring my hatred for anyone who didn’t share my view.
Looks like the OP may live in my town.
Last night I saw a car ahead of me with a Beatles license plate holder, containing the personalized plate “OBLADAH”. 
Allow me to educate you, it is a well known psychological phenomenon that music tastes are mostly defined in young adulthood (I learned this in a psychology class):
http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/39/01/expert/
Do you think it’s just a coincidence that old people listen to what they listened to as young adults and they just happened to be born in “the best time for music eva”? :rolleyes:
Then thank goodness I was an exception, because I liked some pretty gawdawful drek during that 12-16 age range, despite having been that age during the mid to late 1960s. My favorite song during that time, I’m ashamed to admit, was the Cowsills’ “The Rain, the Park, and Other Things.” (Good Lord, I just listened to it for the first time in eons. It’s even worse than I remembered. Where’s the pukey smiley?)
I think it’s time to say something quantifiable about music in the 1960s. For whatever reasons (I’m guessing pressure from their record labels) artists and groups during that time tended to release an album or two each year. The Beatles are at the top of the distribution, with their 14 albums in, what, 7 years, but they weren’t an outlier. Between 1965 and 1970, Eric Clapton released 8 studio albums - 4 with Cream, and 1 each with the Yardbirds, John Mayall’s Bluesbreakers, Blind Faith, and Derek and the Dominoes. The Rolling Stones’ Exile on Main St. (1972) was their 10th UK studio album and their 12th US studio album. And so forth.
This doesn’t happen anymore; hasn’t happened for a long time.
Now, something not so quantifiable, but I think hard to argue with, given the above examples: the better artists and groups during the period thrived on this, and put out A LOT of good music in what was really a pretty short period of time.
What’s happening now? Things seem to be slowing down each decade. Pearl Jam had 7 studio albums between 1991 and 2002 (plus 2 since); Green Day had 6 studio albums between 1990 and 2000, plus 2 since. More recently, Coldplay has had 5 studio albums beginning in 2000; Arcade Fire has had 3 beginning in 2004.
Quite simply, the most talented artists and groups of more recent eras are producing less music over a longer stretch of time than in the 1960s.
There are two possibilities: either there are a lot more of the most talented artists and groups in more recent years than there were back in the 1960s, so the fact that any one artist isn’t producing as much hasn’t led to a decrease in the overall quantity of great music being created; or there aren’t a whole lot more such artists than there used to be, with the result that there has been a dropoff in the amount of great music.
Maybe the 50th best rock/pop artist or band of 2011 is as good as the 20th best such artist or band of, say, 1968, and so the reduced production by the top bands is being made up from below. But I think that would be a hell of a tough argument to make.
Or mystery option three - over the last 10-15 years far more money can be made from touring than can be made from record sales, so bands focus on where they can make the cash - which is not writing new songs but going on a 12 month world tour, where they are not in the studio. It’s hyperbole to say it - but not too far from that mark - that albums (and even individual tracks) nowadays are trailers for the live shows.
Back in the 60s, far less money was made from touring (as sound systems had not evolved to the point where runs of really big concerts could be played at any level of technical competence - witness the people at Shea Stadium saying they couldn’t hear The Beatles - not only because of the screaming but because there wasn’t enough power on stage to amplify the music properly). As a result, you’d have been better off writing some more songs and getting them published and collecting your royalties.
Comparing the frequency of album releases is, in my opinion, far more likely to reveal differences in the industry itself, rather than reveal anything about the relative quality of the bands/acts involved.
Nine. Ironically, the one you forgot is the one he released under his own name.
Not a coincidence, but somebody has to be right when they say they were born in “the best time for music eva.” It just happens to be us. 
Strawberry Fields Forever!
vomits
edit: That added nothing to the discussion, I apologize. 
Option 4: Talented musicians stay roughly the same proportion to the population over time, but Rolling Stone is controlled by old people and their list is dominated by what they think is the “best eva” and isn’t by coincidence dominated by what was important to them at a time in life when music tastes solidify.
This is the most likely one to me. You’re working backwards from the assumption that the Rolling Stone magazine’s list is anything but arbitrary, I challenge that assumption.
I think it’s true there will never be another “mega band” like The Beatles or Michael Jackson again because with the internet music tastes are more niche and fragmented than when you had to get your music from the radio. But when my generation are old influential farts making greatest album lists, it will surely look very different. And then my children, and grandchildren, etc. It’s the height of arrogance to think that your generation’s music (the music ITSELF) is somehow objectively special. It isn’t.
I think this phenomenon deserves its own thread, but something to bear in mind is that modern records are far longer than those released in the 1960s and 70s.
My Generation was 36 minutes long. Sgt. Pepper’s was 39 minutes long.
Nobody except punk and post-punk bands release records that short now. *Both *of Guns and Roses’ Use Your Illusion albums clocked in at over 75 minutes. The much more raw Appetite for Destruction was itself 53 minutes. The Black Album/Metallica is 62 minutes.
Maybe the easiest way to look at the phenomenon is to look at albums released by bands who recorded then and now. The Rolling Stones’ self-titled album was 33 minutes long. A Bigger Bang and Bridges to Babylon are both more than 60 minutes long. The Who’s Endless Wire is 52 minutes.
That may be so. But that’s not my point, which is this: even assuming arguendo that Arcade Fire is every bit as good as the Beatles, Arcade Fire is producing a hell of a lot less music. The reason doesn’t matter.
So this isn’t really option 3, but an explanation of how we got to where we are now, where options 1 and 2 are the only options.
You must be confusing me with someone else. I’m ignoring Rolling Stone’s list entirely, and your response has no rational connection with my post.
They don’t know much, because Abbey Road is better than all four of those! LOL
That’s a very good point. Once albums were no longer limited to what could be squeezed onto a 33 rpm LP, much longer albums became possible. And I’ll take your word that they’ve become the norm, so fewer albums doesn’t necessarily mean less music.
I hadn’t really noticed this, because I’ve bought very little new music on CD in the past 20 years. Not that I haven’t been listening, but once we could purchase individual tracks over the Internet, that’s how I’ve been buying my music. Especially because before that point, when the record companies could still charge $16.95 per CD, it was too often the case that I’d buy a CD of a band that had gotten 3-4 songs on the radio, and I’d find that that was all of the CD that was worth listening to. (Think Third Eye Blind’s eponymous album, or the Wallflowers’ Bringing Down the Horse.) A few instances of that, and I became very reluctant to buy CDs of current music.
So the questions I’d ask would be:
-
Does longer albums by the good bands of recent years mean more good music? Or does it mean an increase in the amount of music on their albums that’s basically filler?
-
As people buy fewer CDs and buy more music straight off the Internet, is anyone listening to the music that doesn’t get airplay? (If a band includes a song on the album, but nobody downloads that track, does it make a sound? :))
But I’m not taking a side on these questions; I’m not in a position to do more than speculate about the answers. Hopefully you young folks (once you get off my lawn, dammit!) can weigh in in a more knowledgeable fashion than I’d be able to.
Who of course covered The Beatles’ “Got to Get You Into My Life.” I grew up thinking that was an EW&F song. I still think their version crushes The Beatles’ like a grape.
You knew this was going to happen, didn’t you, OP?