The burden of what? The OP is the one making the legitimate attempt at discussion. You don’t have to agree with his point to see that he is making one—he is fulfilling his only obligation in an argument, which is to say what he believes and why. The reply is basically “Nuh uh!” and “No one else would ever agree with you.” The OP isn’t arguing with all those critics and bigwigs. They aren’t here.
If someone enters a debate, they should be there to present a side, not to be dismissive or simply to claim that the OP is in the minority. I think the OP knows that.
Thank you, jsgoddess. I doubt if you agree with my point (the odds are certainly against it), but you do see it, which is all I was trying for in the first place.
Exapno, as to your challenge, did you see my above post? Have you listened to those songs yet? While you might not like them better than the Beatles – or at all, for that matter – they display a level of technical mastery consistent with what I would refer to as musical genius. If you listen to them, and still feel your question has not been adequately answered, please let me know, and I will attempt to further elaborate.
I did not start this thread to illustrate why Tears For Fears are “better” than the Beatles. That is A) not my point, and B) a matter of pure opinion and therefore undebatable. Having that as my position would be stupid and irrelevant. I started this thread to give reasons for why I like Tears For Fears better than The Beatles. Your response to this was two parted, the first part adding up to “nuh uh” (interesting in and of itself, since you’re essentially telling me I’m wrong about liking something), and the second being a challenge to a statement of mine that had little to do with my actual point, which I have nonetheless answered (or rather, given you the means to answer it for yourself) anyway. Also, as I said in my above post, if you insist upon making my position out to be “Tears For Fears are the best band ever, period,” and then arguing with me on that basis, you really might want to stop refuting it with “No, cuz the Beatles are, duh!”. It’s like saying you’re a Christian because Judaism makes no sense. “Argumentum non sequitur”, if you will. And the people behind you shouting agreement, numerous though they may be, don’t make it any more valid.
It is a fallacy that all opinions are equal. I’d take the opinion of one person who is extremely knowledgeable about a subject over that of a thousand who aren’t.
Conversely, when there is overwhelming consensus from thousands of knowledgeable people, the opinion of one opposing it carries less weight. Like Shakespeare, the Beatles have been examined in the most minute detail. We have piles of reasoned evidence about why we should rate them at the top, against which “teh suxxor” is meaningless noise.
What would you say were this post on a different topic?
I don’t like Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington. Ornette Coleman is the greatest player/composer in jazz.
I dismiss George Washington and Arbraham Lincoln. Harry S Truman is the greatest president.
I’d like to hear the cases for these, but you know that anyone trying to do so would be subject to furious counterargument by everybody else in the thread.
Roland Orzabal is not simply offering an opinion. He’s making an argument. So far he’s doing so poorly. He hasn’t established he knows enough about the Beatles’ music to dismiss it (their music wasn’t “simplistic” and people have offered two full books to refute that), and he hasn’t said much of anything in support of Tears for Fears except that he thinks they make complex, layered music. So do I, and I’ve said just that in several threads. And more:
But when he tries to take it farther he hasn’t yet said anything that I find convincing. Look at that quote. I shouldn’t be that difficult to convince. If RO is failing, then perhaps he doesn’t have much of an argument.
OK, you’ve given your opinion. I don’t understand what you’re looking for in return. If all you are doing is offering an opinion, then no response is required.
I am pointing out, however, that your opinion of The Beatles is grounded on statements that most knowledgeable people find to be objectively incorrect. That lessens my opinion of your opinion.
At least we can agree that Tears for Fears is not the best band ever.
jsgoddess - sorry, I am at work right now and the boss is lurking, so I can’t reply in detail.
to your query “the burden of what?” I feel that the argument remains. The Beatles, for better or worse, like it or not, are the established “best.” For anyone to hold up another artist within this genre - pop/rock - they’d have to base their arguments on how that artist is superior to the Beatles.
RO has done a solid job articulating both why TfF is a great band and why he (I assume he; sorry if wrong) likes them. He hasn’t made a particularly strong argument for why they are better than the Beatles. He may have made a credible argument for why TfF are musically more complex than the Beatles, but that is about it. He hasn’t discussed things that might also go into defining “Best,” such as:
Innovation - The B’s are largely considered to be supremely innovative in their use of the studio and its equipment. TfF is not normally mentioned in this regard at the same level of innovation.
Popularity - The B’s are one of the most popular bands ever. TfF = moderately popular at best.
Cultural Crossover (different than popularity; the Sex Pistols were never popular in terms of sheer record sales or radio play but certainly did cross over). The Beatles are one of the ultimate examples of cultural crossover - they are one of the key icons of the 60’s. Everybody knows the Beatles. Same can’t be said for TfF.
Influence - The B’s are generally held up to be one of the most influential artists in their genre. Even for TfF - they love the Beatles. TfF - not even in the same league in terms of influence.
Landmark expressions of art - The Beatles have a number of songs or albums that are held up as landmarks, from “I Want to Hold Your Hand” (breakthrough Mersey pop to U.S.) to “She Loves You” (Third Person and use of “Yeah’s” to “In My Life” (pop band gets introspective) to “Tomorrow Never Knows” (psychedelica) to “A Day in the Life” and “Strawberry Fields” (tone poems, pop art) to “Hey Jude” (almost a gospel chant of renewal in pop form). You may not like the songs (and I may have mis-stated what makes them landmarks, but I took a shot), but you must acknowledge that they are considered watershed songs that influenced other songwriters and music in general. TfF doesn’t have nearly as many.
You see where I am going with this? If you want to claim musical complexity for TfF, fine - you can do that (I might choose to argue the point, but would need to really listen to a lot of TfF, which I can’t do right now). But in terms of “best” etc., there is more to it than that. Lots of bands can claim superior musicianship or songwriting complexity, but no artist is more squarely at the intersection of all the things that make a rock band great like the Beatles.
The problem is that I don’t know you, and I don’t know how much you know. You aren’t demonstrating extreme knowledge about The Beatles in this thread, so why should I trust your opinion? It is your opinion that they are great, and it is your opinion that the people who agree with you are worth listening to as well.
The OP didn’t post asking for others to find outside sources to make their arguments for them. In fact, I take it from the OP’s statements that he is aware how The Beatles are viewed by the establishment and he, simply, doesn’t agree. He has said why he doesn’t agree. He has given examples of why he doesn’t agree. You have replied with, essentially, a raspberry.
If you don’t want to discuss it, fine. But then why are you in this thread? That’s what I’m finding so peculiar. If you don’t want to explain your views and defend them, why keep posting these drive-bys about how some people’s opinions are more valuable than others? How about you demonstrate why your opinion is valuable and let the readers of this thread decide?
Why are you telling me this? Tell the OP! He’s the one making an argument. This is your counterargument, which is what you should have offered in the first place (if you were interested in the discussion) rather than a defense of EM’s raspberry. This is all I was asking for in the first place—a discussion rather than an arrogant dismissal.
The OP made a claim, with what evidence he felt was appropriate. With this post you’ve made a counter-argument. Voila! We have a debate.
As for me, I don’t think any of the above is particularly necessary when it comes to a discussion of “best” in the art world. Of course, I’m a poet, and we’re weird.
So this is the fundamental argument of the OP. Ultimately, it is an opinion. I like a ton of what I have heard from TfF, but you know what? I think “Rockaway Beach” by the Ramones blows most of their stuff away. Is it superior to TfF “in terms of objective quality”? Not even close - I just know it rocks.
If you narrow your criteria in a specific way - e.g., “objective quality” - you can argue for whatever you want - e.g., “I am not saying that Metallica is better than the Beatles, but in terms of capturing teenage angst, use of scooped-mids guitar tones and innovating with song structures and pacing, they are clearly better”
Ultimately, the arguments come down to:
“I like 'em better” - great - YMMV.
“They are objectively better” - fine, but make the argument broad enough to be interesting. Moving beyond technical studio complexity, TfF doesn’t hold a candle to the Beatles in most other categories where “better” is worth discussing…again, not in anyway to disrespect TfF - they are great - simply within the context of a debate over superiority.
Because I enjoy every opportunity to address a goddess.
Beyond that, I didn’t read Exapno’s post as an arrogant dismissal - simply a short-hand articulation of what I stated when I didn’t I had time to post(!).
Ah, but Ms. Poet Goddess, don’t you use “best” to describe certain poems when it serves the point you are making? It feels like the same thing here - it is one thing to say “T.S. Eliot is the best modernist poet” (IANAPoetry expert, so could be way off here). But if someone holds up, oh, I dunno, Robert Haas (was that the poet who was U.S. Poet Laureate a few years ago?) and says “from a technical standpoint, he is far superior to Shakespeare” wouldn’t you expect the burden of the argument to be on the person holding up Haas? The documentation for Shakespeare’s excellence is vast - is it meaningful to pick that one criteria and hold it separate from all of the other stuff that makes Shakespeare “the best” - if so, why? Then, if it is worth considering, what specfically makes Haas (or whomever) superior to Shakespeare?
Again, when an artist is so firmly entrenched in Bestitude, structuring an argument about why they are best in one way or another is a subtle thing.
WordMan: I realize we probably just cross-posted (and, for that matter, that you were talking to jsgoddess and not to me), but your post highlights a few key aspects of my point, so I would like to respond to it anyhow.
Again, I think we cross-posted, so you may have missed my above post. But I’ll state it again for the record: I’m not trying to argue that they are better than the Beatles. I am stating that I like them better than the Beatles and am giving my reasons why this is so.
Every single point you just made was precisely correct. I do not dispute ANY of that. I’m not arguing that the Beatles are not a great rock band in that sense. I would, in fact, argue that using those criteria, the Beatles are indeed the greatest rock band of all time. I just don’t like their music.
Let’s have a look at the qualities you mentioned.
Innovation - important in regard to “greatness”. Neutral in regard to whether or not I like the music; if the innovative element is interesting, it will be so regardless of whether it is innovative or not.
Popularity - important in regard to “greatness”. Absolutely irrelevant in regard to whether or not I the music. Somebody remind me how many albums has Britney Spears has sold, again?
Cultural crossover - important in regard to “greatness”. Arguably relevant in regard to whether I like the music, since music that appeals to a wider variety of cultures stands a greater chance of appealing to me. Still, this point is similar to popularity in that the quality of the music speaks for itself, regardless of who else does or does not like it.
Influence - perhaps the most important quality in regard to “greatness”. Wholly unimportant in regard to whether or not I like the music. I have already acknowledged the influence of the Beatles on Tears For Fears. Still doesn’t mean I like their music. They don’t really sound anything alike, save for a select few songs where that was the intention.
Landmark expressions of art - see “innovation”. I would argue that Tears For Fears is more significant in this area than many people realize, but even so, it is irrelevant to whether or not I like the music. A well-expressed artistic notion that appeals to me will appeal to me regardless of whether or not it is innovative and a “cultural landmark”.
Now, do you see my point? I am not saying anything about the relative “greatness” of Tears For Fears or The Beatles. I am saying that I like the music of Tears For Fears better than that of The Beatles, for the very reason you granted me in the beginning of your post. I like complex, layered music. The Beatles, in general, did not make complex, layered music on the level of Tears For Fears. Regardless of what else these two bands may have accomplished, I am talking about the music. Generally, music is the primary reason I listen to music. I do not listen to a certain band because they are popular, I do not listen to them because they are innovative, I do not listen to them because of what they inspired, I do not listen to them because of their cultural appeal, I do not listen to them because of how influential they were, and I do not listen to them because of the novelty of their artistic expression.
Nope - very cool. Perhaps you should’ve just posted a thread entitled “I Love Tears for Fears” and within that post, stated that you, personally, find them more musically complex and pleasurable than the Beatles…
Please take the opportunity to address this goddess at any time.
I’m going to skip the best discussion, not because I’m not interested, because I am, but I just don’t have time right now to do it justice.
Part of my reaction to EM’s post is assuredly a holdover from a very similar post he made in the earlier thread that said 10,000 Frenchmen can’t be wrong… no… wait, it said that no one would take RO seriously unless he agreed with EM regarding The Beatles. His posts to this thread strike me as being in the same vein.
Now you and the OP are in complete accord and if we’re not careful someone is going to start singing Kum Ba Ya.
And I don’t care how subjective art is; it is objective fact that song is just wrong.
Yeah, but the thing is, whenever I do that, I get blasted by a bunch of people telling me I’m an idiot because The Beatles are the best band ever. They then proceed to quote facts at me to prove that The Beatles are the best band ever, none of which has anything to do with whether or not the music itself is any good.
That happens every time, despite the fact that I never – ever – said anything about any of that. I like the music of Tears For Fears better than that of The Beatles. Yes, that’s my entire point. No, it’s not a terribly impressive standpoint. Rather bland, actually.
THAT’S WHAT I KEEP TRYING TO GET ACROSS.
If people don’t want to have to go through this litany of back-and-forth rhetoric to eventually end up at a point that’s completely mundane, then when I say I don’t like the Beatles, they need quit misinterpreting it to mean something far greater in scope than anything I actually said, and quit fucking shouting a cacophany of crap at me telling me that I’m wrong about a point I never made. Heck, recall what I said that kicked this thing off in the first place. I took a shot at the Beatles (admittedly drive-by and cheap; poor form on my part, and for that I apologize) in the thread linked in the OP. Specifically, I called them “simplistic and boring”. “Simplistic” referred to the relative lack of layered complexity in the music itself that are the reason for me not liking it, and “boring” referred to the fact that I didn’t like it because of that quality. All of these are value judgements. And, if you look at the end of my statement in that thread – “…so that people would realize they’re simplistic and boring and quit telling me I should like them” – you can see it there, too; I’m just sick of people telling me I should like them when I don’t. In retrospect, that would have been better phrased “…so that people would realize that I think they’re simplistic and boring…”, but I thought it would be clear that a statement of opinion was not an assertment of fact. Nobody, least of all me, is trying to say the Beatles do not possess all of the qualities that WordMan enumerated, and in spades. The Beatles were a great band. I do not dispute that, and would argue tooth and nail against any who did. However, my sole, singular, unique, and many other redundant adjectives, criterion for whether or not I like a band is whether or not they make music I like. Using that criterion, I do not like The Beatles. I do, however, like Tears For Fears. Now, hopefully, you know my point, and you know why I started this thread. Sorry if it seems anti-climactic; it was (as has become apparent) necessary nonetheless.
People liking something for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not the thing itself is any good is another topic in and of itself. I can’t say I understand it. As it is, in the end, a value judgement of a personal nature, I generally leave it without comment. But, as Exapno so correctly pointed out, it is a fallacy that all opinions should be considered equally valid, in that opinions based on logic we find flawed need not be taken into consideration. So, those of you who would have me like The Beatles, tell me this: what is it about the facts that Beatles are innovative, popular, influential, multiculturally accepted, and artistically expressive that has anything to do with why you like their music? If nobody else in the world liked the music of The Beatles, and nobody was inspired by it, and it didn’t achieve the same level of cultural significance – but nothing about the music itself had changed – would you still think it was good? If you say “yes”, you’re contradicting your own point that the above factors have any bearing on whether or not you like it. But if you really would say “no”…why?
What pissed people off, starting this cacophany of crap was your irrelevant drive by in the linked thread. The Beatles, whatever they may be, are NOT simplistic and boring no matter which way you slice it. That is just ignorant and wrong. I am perfectly willing to accept that you don’t care for the music The Beatles produced, as long as you are willing to accept how innovative and influential it was. However, spouting bullshit like “The Beatles could have summed up their career by recording a song called ‘Holy Crap, We Are Simplistic and Boring’” will not get you a sympathetic hearing.
Listen to the entirety of The Beatles and Abbey Road, then come back and tell us how simplistic and boring you think The Beatles are. The side 2 medley on Abbey Road should be enought convince you otherwise. Then try Revolution 9. You might find it pretentious, but it sure as hell isn’t simplistic and boring.
Taking a moment to actually read your post, I am perfectly willing to accept your stance. You appreciate The Beatles, but you don’t care for their music, preferring Tears For Fears. Fine. Just don’t say stupid stuff like “I don’t like Band X, so holy crap they are stupid.”
Well RO - seems like you’re glad you got that off your chest! (I tend not to click on posts where somebody just says “I really like <band name>” unless I really really like them, so haven’t seen any TfF posts. I can’t say I have seen posters blanketing threads about other bands with “but the Beatles are better” posts, but, again I haven’t been looking for it. Someone doing that would be bad form, IMHO. If the post is about <band> and how you like them, good on ya!.)
As for the question at the bottom of your post - I definitely take in a band’s other factors when I listen to them, and I don’t know that I could separate the music alone from the other contextual stuff.
Knowing that The Beatles (I know - aaagh!) song “I Want to Hold Your Hand” was not only their breakthrough single in teh U.S., but came at a time when the U.S. was looking for something to take our collective minds off the assassination of JFK changes how I listen to it.
Knowing that “Bohemian Rhapsody” was recording basically on a four-track and that the final mix tape was so thin from repeated stretching that it almost broke makes me that much more amazed at the complex arrangements.
Knowing that Prince’s “Dirty Mind” is not only a great song, but is groundbreaking in the world of urban synth-pop and was a beginning of Prince’s innovation and influence on the world of R&B makes me listen harder to the simple, primitive synth line.
You get the idea - the context influences how I hear it. Fundamentally, I have lo like the music first - clearly - but the context adds layers of shading to the listening experience…
Ilsa, I have already apologized for my drive-by (most recently in my last post to this thread), and I am sincere in that. I have also granted that the Beatles have produced things which were neither simplistic nor boring. I find the vast majority of those songs to be not only pretentious, but bordering on the nonmusical, as they are so disjointed and bizzare that I cannot enjoy them in the standard manner of listening. Many of those things are indeed complex and interesting to me, but they are complex and interesting to me as pieces of aural art decidedly different from what I would consider “music”.
Furthermore, they have done a rare few songs that have fallen in the enjoyable range between the two extremes I’ve outlined. I like those songs. I think they’re actually quite good. The thing is, liking out of a library of work the size of that of The Beatles, does not exactly qualify me as a Beatles fan. I do not hate every single thing The Beatles have ever done. That doesn’t mean I don’t dislike them.
So your main argument is that you like the music of TfF better than The Beatles. What is the point of this?
I bet everyone here can say the same thing about some other artist or band. I personally like the music of Prince & The Talking Heads (to name a few) better than The Beatles.
But there is no doubt that The Beatles were the greatest band of all time, on every level.
Sure. I absolutely cannot understand your position that the majority of their songs are disjointed and nonmusical, but I will accept the general position that you do not care for them, preferring Tears For Fears instead.
