Way to resuscitate a thread, Zeke!
You know who ELSE sucked? That Bee Thoven guy. It was all marketing!
I will say two things: this is a thread that is more about the Kinks. It’s not about dismissing the Beatles. Why don’t you start a thread about how bad the Beatles are and go from there?
The other point: this isn’t Fox News, attempting to frame a partisan opinion as Fair and Balanced. To be clear: the Beatles are, objectively, the biggest selling, most critically-well-regarded musicians of the modern era. If you want make a case otherwise, then saying “well, I think they’re a Boy Band” isn’t going to cut it.
Start a thread and make your case. Whether I am using proper debate technique isn’t the point. You are saying nothing other than you don’t like them. Yay, good for you.
Waitaminnit: you are actually asking for cites as to whether the are the biggest selling band, or that Sgt Pepper was transformational? Really? That’s frickin’ hilarious. Enjoy debating yourself.
You could follow up THAT thread with “Dr. Albert Schweitzer, that selfish cunt.”
You have it right. It’s easy to sneer, especially since you ignore the facts when they’re presented to you. The fact remains that the Beatles were critical and popular successes from the get-go.
Part of that is their innovations are so much a part of the musical landscape that they’re easy for people to forget them (BTW, I listed several concrete, verifiable examples of the Beatles innovation, with cites to back it up). Scott McCloud talked about this in his Understanding Comics – how people will show disdain for a pioneering artist, thinking they were crude, then realize the crudeness is only the surface (the easiest part of art to master, but the one people are most impressed with).
But this is just trashing someone for the sake of trashing someone. It comes with no critical perspective, just a desire to say something outrageous against conventional wisdom to show how smart you are. Most people outgrow this by the time they’re 30, but there are always a few who just love to stir the pot just to watch others get mad.
Much as I like the Kinks, I know the Beatles are better. And the proof, among other things, is how many songs from the Beatles catalog are still played. There are probably a dozen Kinks songs that most people can name. There are at least twice as many Beatles songs that people not only know, but love to hear.
Beethoven is still listened to today because his music was great. Johann Peter Solomon, whose influence on the classical scene in Beethoven’s time, is unknown to all but music scholars. You’re arguing that Solomon was the greater composer, simply so you can show you’re so smart.
I’m so glad other people can put words in my mouth for me. It saves so much effort.
And resurrecting a thread from earlier this year is a crime now?
You know what else is super popular - maybe even more than Sgt. Pepper? The Bible. It has had a massive influence all over the place and many people consider it absolutely incredible. Does this make the Bible the bestest book ever? If not then why are these arguments considered meaningful when it comes to a pop group?
Cite that they are the most critically-well-regarded musicians of the modern era. Well-regarded? Sure. The most well-regarded in modern history. Cite or it is just another specious claim made in the deification of a band.
I have said that the Kinks are lyrically superior, I have said that they actually spawned a whole genre. I have said that they showed at least equal musical variety (in terms of sound) as the Beatles.
I have responded to claims made in favour of the Beatles that are made to make them appear to be more than they are.
So again, if the Beatles are the be all and end all then all of your assertions should be easy to find. It is you job to support your argument (you know, term paper type-stuff) and I welcome you to do it.
The Kinks ARE the better band. And I don’t have to make up a bunch of accomplishments in order to feel justified in that.
Bands are musicians. Better band implies better musicians. You profess not to know music.
Best songs = better band.
You are going to demonstrate that the beatles are a boy band? OK go
You are going to give us your capsule CV for Power pop too? Badfinger, Rundgren, the Raspberries, the Who, Dwight Twilley are the first things I think of. Any Beatles influence there? Would you even know?
From Badfinger Wiki:
In 1971, the group rented Clearwell Castle, in Gloucestershire, living and recording there.[55][56] They finished recording their third album, again with Emerick as producer, but the tapes were once again rejected by Apple. Harrison took over as producer in spring of 1971,[57] but later pulled out of the project because of his Bangladesh commitments; the album was then completed by Todd Rundgren.[58] Straight Up was released in the US in December 1971,[57] and spawned two successful singles: “Day After Day” (Billboard number four),[36] which sold over a million worldwide,[59] and “Baby Blue” (US number 14).[18] The album reached number 31 on the US charts. It included uncredited special guest appearances from Harrison, Leon Russell, and Klaus Voormann.[60] Commenting on the recording of the dual slide guitars on “Day After Day”, Molland remembered: “Pete and I had done the backing track, and George came in the studio and asked if we’d mind if he played … It took hours, and hours, and hours, to get those two guitars in sync”.[61]
You are going to claim that Power pop is not beatles based?
OK go ahead, and of course you’re going to describe the scene of guitar bands that played and sang their own compositions that existed before the Beatles? What country are you going to do this for BTW? Consider this a “cite” request “from me to you.” Tell me all the “marketing” that was going on. And how the Beatles just stepped right in to the scene that already existed. And how Brian Epstein was perfectly prepared to market and exploit the Beatles. See: Seltaeb - Wikipedia
The Beatles worked closely with the producer and engineer to make innovations. This information is so commonly recorded that it makes me wonder if you have any actual knowledge about this. You should be the one doing the citing IMO.
So when you make specific claims and they are shown to be wrong or exagerations you fall back on, “it’s so subtle… people always tear down innovators…”
You ascribe to me motives that are far from true and you do so rather than actually back up your assertions. You say you can back them up and then proceed not to.
If they are the bestest then it should be easy to show. Show it. Mere popularity does make it so.
I like cats better than dogs to btw. I’m so contrarian.
You know what? No. I have a family and a job and I don’t have time for your tedious argument. Go for it, Dude! Claim victory.
Alone.
Well now I feel like shit. I didn’t mean alone as in you have no friends, I mean in terms of pushing your argument-rock up a hill by yourself. You make specious arguments, but wasn’t trying to go there. Sorry.
Of course it’s not a crime to bring back a thread that’s only a few months old. I was expressing admiration rather than condemnation.
Rephrased: “Dropping a hydrogen bomb like ‘The Beatles were just a boy band!’ is a GREAT way to attract attention to an old thread and get everyone to post to it!”
That’s okay, you can take the ball and go home.
The very fact that you’d liken my saying that to a hydrogen bomb speaks to my belief that Beatles worship is just that worship. Just a rational and reasonable as any other worship.
I have yet to see any one demonstrate that this isn’t the case. Most claims made of them have been debunked and the only response is how popular they are.
They were just a boy band. They do owe their sacred-cow status to marketing, nostalgia and breaking up at their peak.
Whether you agree with me or not makes no difference. I argue to learn, not to win.
I was hoping some of the claims could be backed up because then I could learn stuff I don’t know.
It seems they can’t be so the rabidity strikes me as no different than the shrieking audience on Ed Sullivan.
If you’re interested in reading a serious musicologist’s analysis of all the Beatles recordings, the Alan W. Pollack Notes on… serious is fantastic. The music theory geek nerd whatever in me loves reading this sort of stuff to better appreciate the rich complexity of their pop music. If you love music and music analysis, it’s seriously worth a read. As I said earlier in this thread, I listen to the Kinks more than the Beatles these days (and I’m a child of the 80s), but I think you are misguided in dismissing them as just another boy band or that they owe all their fame to nostalgia, marketing, etc. I mean, how many bands can pull off an 11/8 - 4/4 - 7/8 rhythmic transition in a freaking pop song and make it sound completely natural and you not even notice? (“Here Comes the Sun.”) Or even the alternating 4/4 and 3/4 in “All You Need is Love”? Not that anyone really gives a shit about time signatures, but I appreciate them doing cool little things like this in their music, rather than plodding along in 4/4 the whole time. No, they weren’t the only band doing this (I recall the Byrds having a couple songs in 5/4 on one of their albums). but for mainstream pop, I find it impressive.
Zeke – I dunno, it sounds to me like you’re arguing “The sun rises in the WEST. PROVE ME WRONG.”
I’m going to bed. Tomorrow morning when most of us approach our work computers winking and yawning before another long day of wasting time on the Straight Dope, I’m sure A LOT of people will be willing to take your hand and guide you towards the True Light.
Gonna go listen to “Waterloo Sunset” first.
You’re my hero Zeke. You’re sick of all this “trans-stuff” and you believe the Beatles were just a boy band, popular due to timing and marketing.
I’m going to enjoy keeping up with your ignorance in all your wise posts: very entertaining.
There are so many cites to choose from that completely prove you wrong, but you won’t listen. The Wikipedia article on the Beatles is very good, with cites and everything.
Elvis Costello writes in Rolling Stone:
There’s so much information out there on the greatness of the Beatles and their influence on music and society, but I know you won’t read it.
So, like your other thread on “trans-stuff” I’m bowing out of this one now too. See you in another fun thread.
And when you say “cult of the Beatles” you’re referring to, oh, nearly every other human on the planet that isn’t you, right? :rolleyes:
(bolding mine)
No; they didn’t.
I have a theory that some people just post in order to practice their rhetoric or their English.
Thank-you. This is substantive. Largely meaningless to me - I truly don’t know an eight note from a quarter note and time signatures may as well be Greek (hence me not saying anything about musicianship.
But see this amounts to more than, “Well all the cool kids think so and I wanna be one too.” Thank-you.
Is the entire series stuff like that or is there something in there that I may understand enough to get something out of?
I really don’t see the need to be insulting. Do you miss elementary school that much?
Yes, everyone on Earth slavers over the Beatles because oh yes they do and rightly so and blah blah blah. I remember when I was one of the few that didn’t like Milli Vanilli too - I guess I was wrtong about that since everyone disagreed with me.
<– Kinks essentially starting a genre
There are a great many people who disagree with you. And since numbers are what counts in this discussion…I win. At least I would win if I was trying to win something. But numbers and authority agree with me on this one so 
Here’s an idea - try saying something that doesn’t rely on “everyone loves them don’t pick on my band they is the awesomest.” You know, like Pulkymel and even Leaffan
And someday you may achieve a degree of proficiency.
Here are some stats:
900,000+ hits on “who invented heavy metal music “kinks”” the vast majority of the 1st two pages either list the Kinks as originators or foundational. I’d say there is a very strong argument that they founded a genre -they are also linked to Punk and at least one person upthread gave them credit for Garage Rock - maybe two or three.
33 million plus hits on “don’t like the Beatles” <— awww, I’m not alone. That’s the equivalent of my whole country. I feel so warm now.
12 million hits on “I love the Beatles” ooooooo almost three to one in favour of them not being beloved by all. Maybe I am one of the cool kids after all.
1.9 million hits on “the Beatles are the best band ever.”
6.3 million+ hits on “The Beatles are not the best band ever” Really not looking good for that whole universal love thing you guys keep harping on.
Hardly comprehensive research I know, but read a few of the “reasons to hate the Beatles” columns and you’ll see - complete with cites, quotes and other nifty things - that the Beatles can be rightly said to have been an over-produced marketing ploy who were mediocre musicians (I can’t speak to that) piss poor poets (that they were with a very few exceptions) and thieves (successfully sued three times) who couldn’t play worth a damn live.
Whatever criticisms I’ve heard of the Kinks (mainly their personalities) none of them approaches those levelled at the Beatles. That being the case I can only hold to my assertion that the Kinks were a better band.
Show that the Beatles did not get sued for ripping others off. Show that they were in fact talented poets, supremely skilled musicians (that I’ll have to take your word for) who did not rely on the technical prowess of the producers etc show one TRUE innovation or invention (not production stuff) and I’ll consider your points - and sources - and I may be persuaded that while I dislike their music they are really super cool.
You won’t be able to because everything I’ve said is true - and not my singular opinion - so you will fall back on little more than “But I luuuuuuuuvvvvvvvvv them sos much!”