For me The Smiths were more important. Gave rock music an Englishness that the Beatles didn't. That said, both are polarised musically and there are a few Beatles songs I do like, Revolution for one. Generally speaking I never got the appeal. Same with Oasis latterly, didn't see what all the fuss was about.
The Beatles
-
-
Forme The Smiths were more important. Gave rock music an Englishness that the Beatles didn't.
I think, without even debating the merits of what you saying, you proved again the difficulty of substantiating personal taste. I am sure eyebrows raised when reading ''Smiths'' and ''Beatles'' even in the same sentence, I know mine did but it's quite OK and it is not really the point. It is bizarre to claim that the the Beatles, basically the Godfathers of British rock music were not British enough or less British than any other band. They put Britain on the music map, in an industry basically dominated by America, they made England the centre of the world and London the place to be, at a time, after WW2, in the light of the USA-USSR Cold War, after Suez and after a string of Colonies declared Independence, when it became painfully clear that the Empire was no more and England was just another country. They single-handedly started the so called British Invasion and all the while being with their music extremely British. To this day they are considered by the rest of the world, British icons, like say, James Bond or the Monarchy. So, you don't think much of them? That's fine but I am sure you can find better reasons than lack of Britishness
-
Quote
For me,
There lay the clue. I think there were far better bands (and I'm unanimous in this) of English representation - Pink Floyd - The Who - but then there may be a genre disparity in the pop vs rock malarky. If you like The Beatles, fine by me but I sincerely believe they were over-hyped.
-
For me The Smiths were more important. Gave rock music an Englishness that the Beatles didn't. That said, both are polarised musically and there are a few Beatles songs I do like, Revolution for one. Generally speaking I never got the appeal. Same with Oasis latterly, didn't see what all the fuss was about.
Wow! As bizarre a statement as I can ever recollect hearing regarding The Beatles - questioning the Englishness of their music. At first, I thought - well, he's obviously just pulling our chain - but no, it appears you really do believe this. I feel sorry for you in that you haven't experienced the 'magic', and the Englishness, of The Fab Four. I would love for you to sit down and listen to their entire catalogue. Something tells me you aren't familiar with The Beatles' music as a whole.
-
Wow! As bizarre a statement as I can ever recollect hearing regarding The Beatles - questioning the Englishness of their music. At first, I thought - well, he's obviously just pulling our chain - but no, it appears you really do believe this. I feel sorry for you in that you haven't experienced the 'magic', and the Englishness, of The Fab Four. I would love for you to sit down and listen to their entire catalogue. Something tells me you aren't familiar with The Beatles' music as a whole.
I'm absolutely not and I may need (and am not averse to) an education!
Although I fail to see why, when in album best-ofs like NME, Rolling Stone and the like, The Queen Is Dead can be above Sgt. Peppers, I can't compare the two bands in popularity?
I doubt that I will ever experience the 'magic' of the Fab Four but try me.
-
There lay the clue. I think there were far better bands (and I'm unanimous in this) of English representation - Pink Floyd - The Who - but then there may be a genre disparity in the pop vs rock malarky. If you like The Beatles, fine by me but I sincerely believe they were over-hyped.
We re not talking about better or worse bands, although when you mention PF and the Who, we are already moving in a different territory and category than the Smiths. You brought up the argument of ''Britishness'' to substantiate your dislike for the Beatles or preference for others. Whether I like the Beatles or not, is really not the point here, it is equally perfectly fine to find them over-hyped but it also besides the point. Personal taste aside, I think it is very hard to maintain that the Beatles are not quintessentially British and in fact the original ambassadors of British music. Perhaps though you can help me understand, why are the Smiths and their music more British than the Beatles?
-
We re not talking about better or worse bands, although when you mention PF and the Who, we are already moving in a different territory and category than the Smiths. You brought up the argument of ''Britishness'' to substantiate your dislike for the Beatles or preference for others. Whether I like the Beatles or not, is really not the point here, it is equally perfectly fine to find them over-hyped but it also besides the point. Personal taste aside, I think it is very hard to maintain that the Beatles are not quintessentially British and in fact the original ambassadors of British music.
Of course the Beatles are quintessentially British, that isn't even a debate. What I'm saying is that personally I feel that The Smiths for me were more representative of Englishness and if you like to think that The Beatles were the original ambassadors of British music that's fine too.
-
For me The Smiths were more important. Gave rock music an Englishness that the Beatles didn't. That said, both are polarised musically and there are a few Beatles songs I do like, Revolution for one. Generally speaking I never got the appeal. Same with Oasis latterly, didn't see what all the fuss was about.
The Beatles have influenced many great bands, specially in the world of Progressive music. Their music is so diversed but easily accessible as many know already. Though the Smith's are great, I know many bands have referenced them in their music.
-
Both. They were equally important.
I agree, but that said, I tend to gravitate more to the Paul songs, but not to any significant extent.
For some time there was a very prevalent "John was the cool one and the real genius" but I think that's been substantially re-appraised over the years.
-
There lay the clue. I think there were far better bands (and I'm unanimous in this) of English representation - Pink Floyd - The Who - but then there may be a genre disparity in the pop vs rock malarky. If you like The Beatles, fine by me but I sincerely believe they were over-hyped.
Like them or don't, obviously that's fine, but in the broader context of the cultural landscape of the 1960s and the seismic effect they had, it's simply untrue they were over-hyped. Even within that, Revolver on its own was like a bomb going off, and even within that, Tomorrow Never Knows was like nothing ever heard before. And that's after the public had already been reeling for 3 years from the cultural sea-change they brought about. Even as a total nutjob fan myself I recognise I can never fully appreciate their full impact at the time.
I probably sound like yet another Beatles Head boring on about them in response to some slight perceived criticism of the holiest of cows. I hope I don't! But if you must take the whole giant continuing cyclone of reaction to, and debate about them, and reduce it to the single syllable 'hype', then they absolutely weren't over-hyped, they were hyped just as much as they merited.
-
Like them or don't, obviously that's fine, but in the broader context of the cultural landscape of the 1960s and the seismic effect they had, it's simply untrue they were over-hyped. Even within that, Revolver on its own was like a bomb going off, and even within that, Tomorrow Never Knows was like nothing ever heard before. And that's after the public had already been reeling for 3 years from the cultural sea-change they brought about. Even as a total nutjob fan myself I recognise I can never fully appreciate their full impact at the time.
I probably sound like yet another Beatles Head boring on about them in response to some slight perceived criticism of the holiest of cows. I hope I don't! But if you must take the whole giant continuing cyclone of reaction to, and debate about them, and reduce it to the single syllable 'hype', then they absolutely weren't over-hyped, they were hyped just as much as they merited.
I have encountered this old chestnut on a variety of music boards across years and a noticeable trait I found was that Beatles fans generally are quite a closed group. The best thing since sliced brigade and Lord help anyone who dare criticize tha band. Part-time arrogance which didn't make for an engaging dialogue to the impartial observer. Clearly you're not one of those and answer with clarity and passion. Yeah, yeah, yeah I took a mild swipe and perhaps a misguided one but said and done, The Beatles were out there on their own, like them or not.
-
i enjoy trying to find a common thread through the whole album sgt. pepper's and the abbey road medley, even though i know it doesn't exist in any of both cases.
-
This will be convoluted but here goes. It took me years to fully appreciate just how 'English' the Beatles were, after always hearing about how the Who & especially the Kinks epitomised Englishness. But listen to Sgt Pepper in particular. You've got music hall, comedy, suburban life (I am thinking of Good Morning, Good Morning but also see Penny Lane, of course), surrealism, quirky character studies (Lovely Rita), social analysis (She's Leaving Home), nostalgia (When I'm 64) and a bleak dissertation on the news mixed with a 'mustn't grumble' interlude ( A Day In The Life). The same is true for Revolver. In my view Eleanor RIgby could only have been written by an Englishman. They constantly included English references in their songs (the Daily Mail in Paperback Writer, the Queen, the National Trust, etc) and you can still hear their Liverpool accents even at the end. I am only mentioning a couple of specific references to illustrate the point. Remember I'm not English myself, though my husband is.
-
There are perhaps three separate issues in the above discussion:
1) The Beatles being over-hyped. If this is in relation to how "good" or enjoyable their music is to a given person, obviously that is a matter of taste. Although their catalogue is diverse and obviously appealed to a kajillion people, I can certainly understand if their music doesn't particularly someone.
2) The Beatles being over-hyped. If this is in relation to their musical importance and influence, I find this a harder point to accept. In essentially 6-7 years, The Beatles completely changed the boundaries of popular music. They went from short pop gems like I Want to Hold Your Hand in 1963 to droning Indian-influenced grooves featuring backwards tapes like Tomorrow Never Knows in 1966 - THREE years later. Generations of musicians cite them as key influences. What they strived for changed the perceptions of what a popular music album could be and how music is recorded and produced.
3) The Beatles are not very English. Not being English, I am less sure about what is quintessentially English. For a Canadian, The Beatles sure seemed English with the various musical and topical references they made as noted above by FeelItComing.
-
What bands have been influenced by The Beatles 'cos I can't think of any. Over-hyped, yes they fit the tag, as well as 'kajillions' liking them there are plenty of us that just don't get it - much ado about nothing springs to mind.
-
What bands have been influenced by The Beatles 'cos I can't think of any. Over-hyped, yes they fit the tag, as well as 'kajillions' liking them there are plenty of us that just don't get it - much ado about nothing springs to mind.
Bands and band members across the globe for generations have gone on about how the Beatles were a huge influence. As I mentioned before, I think you're pulling our chain. Even my grandchildren ages (10 to 28) understand the importance of the Beatles' music. The Beatles were the most widely influential band of the rock era. It's in the history books.
Just a few who have acknowledged the influence The Beatles had on their music:
The Electric Light Orchestra
Black Sabbath
Badfinger
The Lovin' Spoonful
Brian Wilson
Heart
Joe Walsh
Dave Grohl
Ron Wood
Tom Petty
Billy Joel
David Bowie
The Byrds
Eric Clapton
Deep Purple
The Cure
Tears For Fears
Crosby, Stills and Nash
Queen
The list goes on and on...
-
Quote
Even my grandchildren ages (10 to 28) understand the importance of the Beatles' music.
Yep, it's called brainwashing.
And...
Queen. Tears For Fears. The Lovin' Spoonful, fuck me- who writes this stuff.
Proof if ever was needed that these people really are deluded.
And weirder still that I come here for my love of Genesis and end up being expected to defend The Beatles!
#outtahere
-
Your comments are offensive and I for one won't be responding to your posts at any time now or in the future.
-
For some time there was a very prevalent "John was the cool one and the real genius" but I think that's been substantially re-appraised over the years
What bands have been influenced by The Beatles 'cos I can't think of any. Over-hyped, yes they fit the tag, as well as 'kajillions' liking them there are plenty of us that just don't get it - much ado about nothing springs to mind.
I don't know if you are being serious or not but I suggest a survey of interviews on YouTube: Yes, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, either covered a Beatles song on their debut albums or quoted them as a direct influence. Dylan dropped Folk in favor of Rock after listening to the Beatles. Countless musicians, among others Phil, to this day a Beatle fan and Tony stated the Beatles changed their lives forever and actually led them to embrace music. Don't find it weird that you are here for you love of Genesis and you find yourself defending your dislike for the Beatles. Genesis love the Beatles, always have. Unsuspected fans like The Dream Theater or Steve Lukather pop up all the time declaring their love for the band but ultimately the list is simply too long, one has been provided and confronted with facts you decided to ignore them and be rude about it. In recap: it's OK not to like them, I truly don't care but it seems to me, when you make statements or rhetorical questions like that, you really don't know not what you are talking about and you don't seem interested in knowing either.
-
Bands and band members across the globe for generations have gone on about how the Beatles were a huge influence. As I mentioned before, I think you're pulling our chain. Even my grandchildren ages (10 to 28) understand the importance of the Beatles' music. The Beatles were the most widely influential band of the rock era. It's in the history books.
Just a few who have acknowledged the influence The Beatles had on their music:
The Electric Light Orchestra
Black Sabbath
Badfinger
The Lovin' Spoonful
Brian Wilson
Heart
Joe Walsh
Dave Grohl
Ron Wood
Tom Petty
Billy Joel
David Bowie
The Byrds
Eric Clapton
Deep Purple
The Cure
Tears For Fears
Crosby, Stills and Nash
Queen
The list goes on and on...
Oasis, too, perhaps too obviously. Also the Rolling Stones. John once said 'we did it, Mick copied it'. Add the Eagles to Joe Walsh. Glenn Frey once covered I Saw Her Standing There while Don Henley did Yes It Is.
If people don't like the Beatles, OK, but I will never agree that they are 'overhyped'.