Wow, i wish i had the inconsistancy in debating topics that you do. I imagine that is a good defense huh? Its amazing how some people claim to not have implied something in a blatant insinuation when it implies nothing else. Perhaps it is the articulation that is lacking though.
At this point it seems senseless arguing with someone whom cannot appreciate music even if it does not appeal to them. I wasnt defending the Beatles, but music.
Led zeppelin is obviously far more superior to the beatles on a technical stand point. Their appeal, however, was equally devestating to the world. No band can ever sustain such a massive fan following that only continues to grow because they were once the talk of the town. To think that is ignorant.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Last edited by jinXed by JaNx on Nov 14th, 2007 at 09:48 AM
What you have to get is, you are a fan who just gives them credit for their accomplishments, I'm not referring to you with this debate.
But you don't need to, I'm not attacking music. My whole argument is geared toward idiots who praise music equally to OVERALL impact just because they confuse the two.
What are you babbling about?
The Beatles had nowhere near the musical influence and impact that they did culturally. To suggest so is stupid, and so is confusing the two.
I do not credit their accomplishments, but rather, their music. As a casual fan, their accomplishments and social impact never influenced me to explore their music further than the radio, but, rather, their music.
I understand you are arguing with people whom believe societal impacts and quality of music are the same. I am merely conveying a belief that the Beatles social impact has nothing to do with thier ability to sustain and continously find new fans.
Again, i wasnt trying to argue the Beatles influence, nor was i trying to compare their incluence over music against led zeppelin. IF it seemed that way, it was my fault. I was speaking about musical appeal.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Last edited by jinXed by JaNx on Nov 14th, 2007 at 03:46 PM
Yeah, and that's fine, but as below, you showed that we're not really disagreeing on confusion, just their ability to gain new fans.
But that's just wrong, because their reputation has intentionally or not, loaded them fans with a sense of obligation.
Why do you think people who don't even listen to them, or aren't necessarily big fans of music, walk around wearing shirts with The Beatles' name on? Or The Rolling Stones? Ashlee Simpson, for example. Because they are a band that people feel they either have to like or give mass amounts of recognition to.
I'm not saying The Beatles' music cannot, under any circumstance, earn them new fans alone. That's how I got into them, I had no sense of their reputation. My point is, there is an undeniable air of untouchability that is, wrongly in my view, put upon the band.
Their impact is what gets them a lot of their fans, especially since they've been gone. Not solely, but it does.
Ok, well, I'm not denying they hold musical appeal.
I'm simply saying that their reputation is such that many, even to this day, fear saying anything against them. That is undeniable, they have a certain stigma that is created, not from their music, but from their fans.
As I said, it's like christianity and christians. Christianity never really, originally, acted like "If you do not believe this, you're an idiot and wrong, immoral and going to hell.", people did. Same with The Beatles, they knew what they were, they never claimed anything different, it's their fans.
I've noticed a horrible amount of anglophiles who are obsessed with The Beatles. It is absolutely no coincidence, that these people are also obsessed with princess Diana, prince William and 'Mind The Gap' t-shirts.
__________________
"All morons hate it when you call them a moron." - Holden Caulfield
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
Let's do a brief quick summary at this point....
Are The Beatles the greatest and best band ever? In terms of pop culture and art....yes. In influence and music?...plausible.
Do The Beatles fans hyped about group? Yes, they do...just like any other fan who loves their own favorite band.
Is there are reason to hate The Beatles? No, it's stupid. You may not like The Beatles...but to hate them? No, no reason whatsoever.
Are The Beatles overrated? It's a matter of opinion.
Will The Beatles have the same impact on futures generations like they did in their own? We don't know.
Are The Beatles consider musicians and made music? The answer to that is an obvious...yes. Does everyone like it? No, not everyone is into The Beatles.
They are not the greatest and best band ever in terms of pop culture and "art". They are the most commercially successful and culturally impactful band ever, yes. To say they are the factual best band in art is subjective.
In influence? No, because there are factually way more musically influential bands. YOU do not know this because YOU do not have the knowledge to make that claim. Those of us who have know it's not true. Musically ONLY, they didn't do much, they were good musicians writing simple rock songs. Nothing innovative, certainly nothing innovative ENOUGH to be the most innovative ever.
Learn this, please.
There's a difference between hyping them because you love their music, and hyping them as something they are not, into objective territory. Eg; "The Beatles are the most musically innovative group of all time.", fact is, they are not.
Who does?
In terms of musical quality, it is totally opinion. In terms of "Do their fans sometimes rate them unfairly?", the answer is yes, and the proof is in this thread.
They are NO the most musically innovative anything. They wrote very simple music.
This has no relevance, because nobody is discussing that.
The point is; The Beatles have fans that rate them incorrectly, Captain Spaulding is one of those. It's not opinion whether or not they are the most innovative band ever, they are or they are not. There are many more bands and musicians who are doing more innovative work with instruments and writing, always have been, always will be.
People like Spaulding allow their love of the music to cloud this, and in turn, feel they can therefore make factual claims. They cannot.
That's all you need to realise here, that's all that's being discussed really. Does love of a band entitle you to make factually untrue claims about them? No. You may love Chuck Berry a lot, but you'd be wrong to say he is as technically skilled a player as Steve Vai.
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
It's quite obvious you have issues with Beatles fans. It seems you also have issues with other people as well. Don't drown yourself in a glass of water AC.
You been performing the same song and dance while beating a dead horse. We don't have your time AC. Use it wisely when you have something important to say.
I am a fan of The Beatles, how can I have issues with them? I have issues with people being rather silly, and incorrect, who coincidentally happen to be fans of The Beatles, of which there are a lot.
If you choose to be ignorant because you don't know your stuff, that's up to you. I'm replying to you civilly and you're choosing to ignore it because you don't know how to deal with it, which is sad.
You're making irrelevant points because you want to be involved in this debate, any way, any how. You have no argument besides some idealistic belief of the rules of discussion, it has no place here. We're all here to, one way or the other, discuss The Beatles. You obviously don't care enough to do so, we do.
My only issue here is the confusion between subjective love and objective claims. If you can't grasp this, leave the debate for those who can and who want to.