The Beatles

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
well way to beat back my arguement bub, because as far as I can see, you haven't, and thereofre it's just as opiniated as any Beatles fans in here, which by the way speaks for itself.

Do you even try to make sense, or is it just a stream of consciousness thing you do?

"You have beaten back my argument, but haven't.", "The Beatles were definitely influenced by all these people, but they were the most influential ever and better.".

Need to sort yourself.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
Lenn's Legacy, is as a witty lyricist, legacies also speak for themselves. Eric Clapton, another one of the greatest guitarists ever, has also said that harrison is one of the greatest guitarists he's ever seen.

Lennon's legacy as a lyricist is lots of people liking his lyrics (Opinion) and then lots more people being afraid to say anything against that OPINION. My opinion is that he wasn't that good, yours is that he was Jesus through lyricism. My point is, in EITHER case, it doesn't make them an innovative band. Nothing innovative about his lyrics.

Clapton loves everyone, it's hardly an accolade. "Great" means a lot of things. Harrisson was a "great" guitarist in that he made great music with a guitar, yes. He was not good enough, technically, to be considered one of the best ever. That's a fact.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
Ringo's drumming can be argued, but listening to the drumming on In My Life, is so complex, it's very difficult for many superior drummers to do.

You know this, how?

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
The Beatles popularized the 12 string guitar, inspring the byrds, Dylan's music may have been poetry...if you can tolerate what reviewers have dubbed "the withery sound of death." The Beatles have inspired countless artists. To name one Oasis

Yeah, and Oasis are a pile of shit. Thanks guys.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
and if you recall, Martin didn't even work on Let it Be, yet another one of the greatest albums.

So? The things you are giving them credit for, in studio (Their ONLY innovations, by the way), were mostly George Martin.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
On the song Tommorow never Knows, The studio work is so complex, it took work from all 4 bealtes, to get the exact sound they wanted, so yet again, your Martin arguement fails.

You mean...it took...all the members of the band...to settle on a sound that...that they wanted? Holy crap.

And here was me thinking "That's what all bands do.". Wow.

(Sarcasm).

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
and McCartney popularized the bass. No longer was the large plucking bass relevent.

What? Of course it was still relevant. What do you mean he popularised it? You're just trying to give them as much credit as you possibly can, here.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
Furthermore, the beatles heralded the British Invasion, and gave the Rolling Stones their first number one hit, which they did better, with Ringo Singing lead! Ringo of all people. There's a reason why the Beatles music has stood the test of time, when i can tell you people who don't even know who Zappa is.

So what? People not knowing doesn't matter, what matters is what the people did. The Beatles haven't stood "the test of time" so much as they have fans who won't let the world move on. People talk about The Beatles more than they talk about their music, even when they do, it's nothing more than "They wrote good/great/whatever music.". Fans always HAVE to descend into the irrelevancy of their studio "innovations", because they know that without them, The Beatles did hardly anything influential in music itself.

I could keep bringing up my dead grandfather's skill at carpentry, he isn't actually here and still good at it, though.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
In summary, your just as biased as I am, but a compliment in your way, You are well educated. So there's a bitter little cookie for you.

I know I am, and I know you aren't, big deal.

I'm not biased, I like The Beatles. I enjoy their music, I probably always will enjoy it. They're just a good band in my opinion, they're the greatest ever in yours. The place where there's a problem is when you and your kinfolk try putting all this objective credit on them that they do not deserve. You liking them does not afford you the right to give them those accolades.

-AC

The Beatles were very talented musicians. They transcended from pop to rock in an almost seamless transition. I believe it was their later music which cemented them as timeless super stars. Whether you like the Beatles or not. Their music has great diversity and is easy to listen to.

I do seem to remember you using Clapton's opinion of Prince as evidence of his superiority over Billy Joel...

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
The Beatles were very talented musicians. They transcended from pop to rock in an almost seamless transition. I believe it was their later music which cemented them as timeless super stars. Whether you like the Beatles or not. Their music has great diversity and is easy to listen to.

The reaction of the people is what cemented their legacy, not their music, do not confuse the two.

Musically they did nothing amazing in terms of technique or innovation. Culturally? Different story. No band has ever really done what they did CULTURALLY. Musically ALONE? They're not all that.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I do seem to remember you using Clapton's opinion of Prince as evidence of his superiority over Billy Joel...

Coincidentally Prince is. I wasn't suggesting he is cos Clapton says so, it was more, he is anyway, and so Clapton says it. Clapton didn't say "Prince is once of the greatest ever.", he specifically said "Prince is the best guitar player I have ever seen." and referred specifically to the man's ability.

Clapton saying that was not the deciding factor, though. I used him as an example because E.S.B. was talking about peers who value Joel.

-AC

wow, you really are a pompous tool. The Beatles revolutionized the music scene. And even without Martin, George Harrison released an amazing solo album in All Things Must Pass, but hey if you can't comprehend English, well I can't expect you to comprehend their world-changing music. There is a reason people became obsessed with their Music. People went to silly lengths to find out whether Paul was dead or not, and upon hearing the White Album, Charles Manson the beatles were predicting a Race War, and within his own misspelling, the people his followers killed would write "Healter Skelter" in the blood on the wall. So whether one silly individual doesn't believe they're world changing. Being the best is all opinion, but not believing they changed the world, then that's your thing bro. But the sales, the response, and the love say differently bro. You not thinking their the best is all fine. You even said you liked them. But not believing they changed the world, let alone the music scene is sad. McCartney who's said The Beatles are at best a little band from Liverpool playing loud rock music live, even has admitted to their affect on the world. So while you're in your fantasy world, wishing to be different from everyone else, in saying they didn't do anything but make good music, than again, that's your thing mate. I'm not wasting my time here again bloke, because preaching to a tool, doesn't get the nail through the wood.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
wow, you really are a pompous tool. The Beatles revolutionized the music scene.

You can continually say that all you desire, Capt. It doesn't make it any more true than it was before, I'm afraid.

The Beatles are nothing special in terms of technical ability, and they had nowhere NEAR the musical impact that they are praised for. Culturally? Yes. Musically? No.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
And even without Martin, George Harrison released an amazing solo album in All Things Must Pass, but hey if you can't commprehend english, well I can't expect you to comprehend their world-changing music.

I like The Beatles, you think they are sent from God or something, that's entirely up to you. My opinion against yours, you're not wrong for how much you like them.

You ARE wrong to suggest they did all these things, though. They didn't. You are just insisting how much you like them, that's all any fan of The Beatles can do. In the event that it's someone who has a grasp of music, like Kid Kurdy or Electric Boogaloo, all they can do is essentially say how much they love the band, then list irrelevant feats. It'd be fine if we were discussing their cultural impact, but we're not.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
There is a reason people became obsessed with their Music.

Yeah, mostly because of the imposed obligation to like The Beatles.

Even now, you are trying it. New music fans, stupid music fans who cannot think for themselves, can easily be intimidated by people like you into agreeing, just because The Beatles have a reputation. So what? We are not discussing the fans, we're not discussing cultural impact. We are discussing you claiming they are the most innovative musical band ever, and that is a truly ridiculous claim, because you like them a lot.

Liking a band a lot means nothing other than "I like them a lot.", it does not give you the right to give them accolades they have not earned.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
People went to silly lengths to find out whether Paul was dead or not, and upon hearing the White Album, Charles Manson the beatles were predicting a Race War, and within his own mispelling, the people his followers killed would write "Healter Skelter" in the blood on the wall. So whether one silly individual doesn't believe they're world changing. Being the best is all opinion, but not believing they changec the world, then that's your thing bro.

They had an undeniably massive and unmatched cultural, overall impact. They did NOT do anything musically that was innovative, technically marvelous or anything else. THAT is what is overlooked, and THAT is what needs to be discussed.

People confuse the two, they are not connected. Britney Spears has had massive cultural impact. She isn't a great musician, she's not innovative.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
But the sales...

Are irrelevant to your claim.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
the response...

Means nothing regarding your claim.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
and the love say differently bro.

Of course "the love" says differently. The love? The love of The Beatles? Yes. That's what is blinding you. You think "I love them so much, so do many others, therefore we can say they were the best at anything and everything and have it be true.", doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
You not thinking their the best is all fine. You even said you liked them. But not believing they changed the world, let alone the music scene is sad.

So? I don't care if you think it's sad. I think the way you are acting is very depressing. They did not change the world musically, LEARN to differentiate between CULTURAL IMPACT OVERALL and MUSICAL IMPACT SPECIFICALLY. People did more innovative music before them, and after them. Zappa was more innovative the whole time, the fact that he didn't sell as much doesn't make a difference.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
McCartney who's said The Beatles are at best a little band from Liverpool playing loud rock music live, even has admitted to their affect on the world. So while you're in your fantasy world, wishing to be different from everyone else, in saying they didn't do anything but make good music, than again, that's your thing mate.

Read my posts you moron.

I'm not denying their effect, I'm denying their MUSICAL effect SPECIFICALLY. I'm denying the idea that because you love them, they are somehow the most innovative band ever, they are not. They have no earned that right, and being huge doesn't earn it.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
I'm not wasting my time here again bloke, because preaching to a tool, doesn't get the nail through the wood.

You are a poster child for tools of The Beatles. YOU give them a bad name, you give fans of The Beatles a bad name.

You and your kind are to The Beatles what George Bush and right wing Republicans are to christianity.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
[B]You can continually say that all you desire, Capt. It doesn't make it any more true than it was before, I'm afraid.

The Beatles are nothing special in terms of technical ability, and they had nowhere NEAR the musical impact that they are praised for. Culturally? Yes. Musically? No.

in essence, to change the world culturely, you change the world, musically as well. They perfected rock roots, and took it to levels that still inspire artists today

I like The Beatles, you think they are sent from God or something, that's entirely up to you. My opinion against yours, you're not wrong for how much you like them.

Me thinking their the best band ever, because of their effect, and their music which echos, doesn't mean I think their sent from god. ALl I'm trying to prove, is their musical innovation, and their revolution of 1960's culture, and music

You ARE wrong to suggest they did all these things, though. They didn't. You are just insisting how much you like them, that's all any fan of The Beatles can do. In the event that it's someone who has a grasp of music, like Kid Kurdy or Electric Boogaloo, all they can do is essentially say how much they love the band, then list irrelevant feats. It'd be fine if we were discussing their cultural impact, but we're not.

ignoring your tantrum paragraph

Yeah, mostly because of the imposed obligation to like The Beatles.

Not really srug You don't have to like them, though i find that most people who sit down and listen to them, grow to be fans.

Even now, you are trying it. New music fans, stupid music fans who cannot think for themselves, can easily be intimidated by people like you into agreeing, just because The Beatles have a reputation. So what? We are not discussing the fans, we're not discussing cultural impact. We are discussing you claiming they are the most innovative musical band ever, and that is a truly ridiculous claim, because you like them a lot.

You're just part of the lot, who insists on standing out, well, believe it or not, there are plenty of people who don't like the beatles. You're just one of those blokes, and no matter how much common sense is thrown your way, a few over zealous fans has tainted your fandom in the Beatles. And like it or not. Their musical influence, is still seen to this day, in modern under ground bands, which is probably what you're interested in.

Liking a band a lot means nothing other than "I like them a lot.", it does not give you the right to give them accolades they have not earned.

earning an MBE, and inspiring people, is acknowledgement enough bloke. To inspire 1 person inspires a life, but I digress, your point is moot

They had an undeniably massive and unmatched cultural, overall impact. They did NOT do anything musically that was innovative, technically marvelous or anything else. THAT is what is overlooked, and THAT is what needs to be discussed.

Another unimportant, opinionated rambling, moving on

People confuse the two, they are not connected. Britney Spears has had massive cultural impact. She isn't a great musician, she's not innovative.

You like the beatles, but compare them to her. You make it out to be that thier no talent bums. Certainly speaks of your taste. Coming in here, people were indeed right about you

Of course "the love" says differently. The love? The love of The Beatles? Yes. That's what is blinding you. You think "I love them so much, so do many others, therefore we can say they were the best at anything and everything and have it be true.", doesn't work that way.

If Elvis was the king of Rock n' Roll, than the Beatles were the kings of the ladder half of the 20th century, and once Ringo and Paul die, it'll be scene whether or not they can stand the tests of time. yes, that certainly sounds like I'm blinded. Moron

So? I don't care if you think it's sad. I think the way you are acting is very depressing. They did not change the world musically, LEARN to differentiate between CULTURAL IMPACT OVERALL and MUSICAL IMPACT SPECIFICALLY. People did more innovative music before them, and after them. Zappa was more innovative the whole time, the fact that he didn't sell as much doesn't make a difference.

yes it does, you need to sell, to inspire, even if his music was superior, it needs to motivate, and inspire, maybe you're to thick to dig that bloke.

I'm not denying their effect, I'm denying their MUSICAL effect SPECIFICALLY. I'm denying the idea that because you love them, they are somehow the most innovative band ever, they are not. They have no earned that right, and being huge doesn't earn it.

I could say I love the Backstreet Boys because of their impact, but I couldn't back it up, well with the Beatles, there's just so much to say, which I have, you just choose to ignore it, it's not my fault your narrow minded. Hell i even Said Dylan is the greatest lyricist of the century, but couldn't sing worth a damn. Again, not my fault you're narrowminded.

You are a poster child for tools of The Beatles. YOU give them a bad name, you give fans of The Beatles a bad name.

YOU give them no name, and that's where you fail

You and your kind are to The Beatles what George Bush and right wing Republicans are to christianity.

lawlz, you trying to be funny there 😐

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
in essence, to change the world culturely, you change the world, musically as well. They perfected rock roots, and took it to levels that still inspire artists today

You are not proving anything, again. You are just repeating things that suggest how much you love The Beatles.

"They perfected Rock roots.", what does that even mean? A) They didn't. B) The only thing they did was strike gold with a very credible, catchy form of music that was ready to blow ANYWAY. Anyone who has studied music progression from that era will tell you the same.

Nothing they did was revolutionary on a BASIC musical level. If you JUST look at their music, it was nothing amazing. You may love it, I like it, but technically it wasn't anything amazing. That's why they have the reputation for writing SIMPLE songs. SIMPLE.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
Me thinking their the best band ever, because of their effect, and their music which echos, doesn't mean I think their sent from god. ALl I'm trying to prove, is their musical innovation, and their revolution of 1960's culture, and music

And you're not proving it. You do not have to prove their impact on general culture, a fool would deny that. What you cannot do is prove that they are some technically advanced innovators. They were the Nirvana of their day, on a grander scale, that's all they were. They were very, VERY good, they just happened to be at the right place at the right time, and that kind of music blew up.

Nirvana were culturally bigger than their music. Their music was ultra simple, they made great music from little technique, there's NOTHING wrong with that, but that is what The Beatles did.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
Not really srug You don't have to like them, though i find that most people who sit down and listen to them, grow to be fans.

There is an undeniable air of obligation surrounding The Beatles, and it is undeserved. Nellinator never really agrees with me on anything, and he stepped up and admitted that if nothing else, they are way too name dropped and honestly, it's a problem. It causes people who deserve more praise (And probably don't care if they get it or not, but whatever) to get others credited for their work. People here have continually credited The Beatles with creating the concept album until me and someone I fail to remember came along and set the record straight.

It's just stupid.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
You're just part of the lot, who insists on standing out, well, believe it or not, there are plenty of people who don't like the beatles. You're just one of those blokes, and no matter how much common sense is thrown your way, a few over zealous fans has tainted your fandom in the Beatles. And like it or not. Their musical influence, is still seen to this day, in modern under ground bands, which is probably what you're interested in.

I actually still like The Beatles, it's not their fault that a load of idiots happen to like them in ways that happen to be dumb, rate them in ways that happen to be retarded and such other things. Tool are a band I love, and yet, I hate a lot of the general fanbase, they give us a bad name, they give Tool a bad name.

You are like that with The Beatles, proof being that you cannot handle the truth, or what I am saying. I totally accept you may love their music more than anything, you will not accept the fact that they did not do everything you believe.

Their musical influence is not FELT today, it's rated, it's not felt. People say it, where is it? Who has honestly heard a band that sounds anything like them, in any regularity, since around their time? Like Bardock said. Oasis? They don't sound like The Beatles, at all.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
earning an MBE, and inspiring people, is acknowledgement enough bloke. To inspire 1 person inspires a life, but I digress, your point is moot

MY point is moot? You are talking about getting honours from the Queen in a debate about musical quality. Check yourself.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
Another unimportant, opinionated rambling, moving on

So you ignore opinionated posts? That says a lot for the sheer understanding we've come to expect from Beatlemaniacs.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
You like the beatles, but compare them to her. You make it out to be that thier no talent bums. Certainly speaks of your taste. Coming in here, people were indeed right about you

I never said they were no talent bumbs, you reactionary fool. I said CULTURAL impact does not reflect, nor install, musical impact. The Beatles and Britney Spears both have massive cultural impact. Neither of them have much of a musical one. I'm not saying they are as good, I think Britney is shit, but if you can't grasp the point, don't try to debate.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
If Elvis was the king of Rock n' Roll, than the Beatles were the kings of the ladder half of the 20th century, and once Ringo and Paul die, it'll be scene whether or not they can stand the tests of time. yes, that certainly sounds like I'm blinded. Moron

Yes, it really does. "If Elvis was the king of rock 'n' roll.", as if it's somehow fact.

It was a GIMMICK. All people can do, is name people who say they like The Beatles, or that they were INSPIRED IN SOME WAY by The Beatles. Kid Kurdy reeled off a huge list of those people, and none of them sounded, in any way, like The Beatles. They had hardly no MUSICAL influence, just overall INSPIRATION. There is a huge difference.

Opeth may INSPIRE me to write a song, but if my music sounds nothing like them, they have not had a musical influence on me.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
yes it does, you need to sell, to inspire, even if his music was superior, it needs to motivate, and inspire, maybe you're to thick to dig that bloke.

You're obviously either an anglophile or something similar, cos you're using "bloke" way out of context to be English.

Anyway, sales do not mean anything in music. Once again, Britney Spears sells shitloads, so what? You can't say sales and cultural impact matter, then when compared with another who has the same, deny that I can do such things. It's hypocritical.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
I could say I love the Backstreet Boys because of their impact, but I couldn't back it up, well with the Beatles, there's just so much to say, which I have, you just choose to ignore it, it's not my fault your narrow minded. Hell i even Said Dylan is the greatest lyricist of the century, but couldn't sing worth a damn. Again, not my fault you're narrowminded.

You're wrong, and once again, you're too stupid to see the point I'm making.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
YOU give them no name, and that's where you fail

The chances are, I was listening to The Beatles before you had heard of them, "bloke". I give them the name they deserve, there's a difference.

Paul McCartney himself has actually said the same, they were just a band who played rock music, musically. It's you fanatical nutjobs that say "Nah, that's not true. We appreciate the music lots, so he's wrong.".

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
lawlz, you trying to be funny there 😐

No, it's just the most accurate comparison ever.

-AC

beatles sucked.

You gonna get raped.

-AC

**** that. they sucked. deal with it. fact. i win.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are not proving anything, again. You are just repeating things that suggest how much you love The Beatles.

"They perfected Rock roots.", what does that even mean? A) They didn't. B) The only thing they did was strike gold with a very credible, catchy form of music that was ready to blow ANYWAY. Anyone who has studied music progression from that era will tell you the same.

Nothing they did was revolutionary on a BASIC musical level. If you JUST look at their music, it was nothing amazing. You may love it, I like it, but technically it wasn't anything amazing. That's why they have the reputation for writing SIMPLE songs. SIMPLE.

And you're not proving it. You do not have to prove their impact on general culture, a fool would deny that. What you cannot do is prove that they are some technically advanced innovators. They were the Nirvana of their day, on a grander scale, that's all they were. They were very, VERY good, they just happened to be at the right place at the right time, and that kind of music blew up.

Nirvana were culturally bigger than their music. Their music was ultra simple, they made great music from little technique, there's NOTHING wrong with that, but that is what The Beatles did.

There is an undeniable air of obligation surrounding The Beatles, and it is undeserved. Nellinator never really agrees with me on anything, and he stepped up and admitted that if nothing else, they are way too name dropped and honestly, it's a problem. It causes people who deserve more praise (And probably don't care if they get it or not, but whatever) to get others credited for their work. People here have continually credited The Beatles with creating the concept album until me and someone I fail to remember came along and set the record straight.

It's just stupid.

I actually still like The Beatles, it's not their fault that a load of idiots happen to like them in ways that happen to be dumb, rate them in ways that happen to be retarded and such other things. Tool are a band I love, and yet, I hate a lot of the general fanbase, they give us a bad name, they give Tool a bad name.

You are like that with The Beatles, proof being that you cannot handle the truth, or what I am saying. I totally accept you may love their music more than anything, you will not accept the fact that they did not do everything you believe.

Their musical influence is not FELT today, it's rated, it's not felt. People say it, where is it? Who has honestly heard a band that sounds anything like them, in any regularity, since around their time? Like Bardock said. Oasis? They don't sound like The Beatles, at all.

MY point is moot? You are talking about getting honours from the Queen in a debate about musical quality. Check yourself.

So you ignore opinionated posts? That says a lot for the sheer understanding we've come to expect from Beatlemaniacs.

I never said they were no talent bumbs, you reactionary fool. I said CULTURAL impact does not reflect, nor install, musical impact. The Beatles and Britney Spears both have massive cultural impact. Neither of them have much of a musical one. I'm not saying they are as good, I think Britney is shit, but if you can't grasp the point, don't try to debate.

Yes, it really does. "If Elvis was the king of rock 'n' roll.", as if it's somehow fact.

It was a GIMMICK. All people can do, is name people who say they like The Beatles, or that they were INSPIRED IN SOME WAY by The Beatles. Kid Kurdy reeled off a huge list of those people, and none of them sounded, in any way, like The Beatles. They had hardly no MUSICAL influence, just overall INSPIRATION. There is a huge difference.

Opeth may INSPIRE me to write a song, but if my music sounds nothing like them, they have not had a musical influence on me.

You're obviously either an anglophile or something similar, cos you're using "bloke" way out of context to be English.

Anyway, sales do not mean anything in music. Once again, Britney Spears sells shitloads, so what? You can't say sales and cultural impact matter, then when compared with another who has the same, deny that I can do such things. It's hypocritical.

You're wrong, and once again, you're too stupid to see the point I'm making.

The chances are, I was listening to The Beatles before you had heard of them, "bloke". I give them the name they deserve, there's a difference.

Paul McCartney himself has actually said the same, they were just a band who played rock music, musically. It's you fanatical nutjobs that say "Nah, that's not true. We appreciate the music lots, so he's wrong.".

No, it's just the most accurate comparison ever.

-AC

I said that in one of my prior posts about McCartney, and Lennon too has said that he can't even sit through one of his beatle tracks, unless it's a rare song, like Glass Onion. I'm a beatle fan, and I reconize their music for what it is, and seriously you don't have too. Point is, without the beatles heralding the way to Psycadelia music, it wouldn't have nearly had the effect it did, which in itself is musical innovation. You can ignore all the facts if you want, mate, All I'm saying is, the Beatles still inspire people today, I supose you would just like to ignore the countless beatle tribute groups. Argueing with a pompous wall,who absorbs every sensical statement and throws it back into your face by saying "lawlz, you be a beatlemaniac, and stuffs." Get's old, when it's the same old tune. In quoting a Hard Day's Night, I'm leaving this kennel to Lassie.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
I said that in one of my prior posts about McCartney, and Lennon too has said that he can't even sit through one of his beatle tracks, unless it's a rare song, like Glass Onion. I'm a beatle fan, and I reconize their music for what it is, and seriously you don't have too.

You do NOT see their music for what it is, that is precisely the problem. You love their music, so you see it for MORE than it is. Rather than being decent, good, great or extraordinary music never to be better, that you love, and have that as your opinion, you let that view cloud you into thinking that they did things musically that they did not.

Going back to your original claim, they are most definitely not the most musically innovative band ever, and that's a claim bordering on the retarded.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
Point is, without the beatles heralding the way to Psycadelia music, it wouldn't have nearly had the effect it did, which in itself is musical innovation.

They didn't "herald" anything. Psychedelia was happening and they were in the right place at the right time, like Nirvana and "grunge".

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
You can ignore all the facts if you want, mate, All I'm saying is, the Beatles still inspire people today, I supose you would just like to ignore the countless beatle tribute groups. Argueing with a pompous wall,who absorbs every sensical statement and throws it back into your face by saying "lawlz, you be a beatlemaniac, and stuffs." Get's old, when it's the same old tune. In quoting a Hard Day's Night, I'm leaving this kennel to Lassie.

WHO is denying that they inspire people? You do not get the difference between inspiring and actually holding a musical influence in bands, because you're a Beatlemaniac.

The hypocricy is you and others claiming I sing the same old tune.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
They probably do, but I don't think they inspire influential or particularyl great artists nowadays anymore. They did of course have quite an impact in their time and following that.

I mean, they partly inspired Pet Sounds. In a way, one might say, Pet Sounds is the best album the Beatles ever made (possible)

Well great artists don't really need much inspiration themselves. Quite the opposite aspiring artist may need more inspiration than actual true great artists.

I personally like Sgt. Pepper better.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The reaction of the people is what cemented their legacy, not their music, do not confuse the two.

Musically they did nothing amazing in terms of technique or innovation. Culturally? Different story. No band has ever really done what they did CULTURALLY. Musically ALONE? They're not all that.

-AC

The Beatles are most certainly remembered today for their unprecidented popularity, and (later) social undertones. They are also, however, remembered just as much for their actual music. A bands music cannot prevail for thirty odd years unless it has devestating appeal. Most of the current generations that enjoy The Beatles music dont acknowledge and may not even be aware of the suffocating stranglehold they held over the music industry at one time.

You are right in saying, The Beatles did nothing amazing in the way of innovation or technique. Very few muscians ever do. The Beatles were no more innovative than Elvis Presley, but are remembered for much of the same reasons. They created good music. The band had great chemistry, an undying stage presence and later delved deep into creativity.
Whether you want to believe it or not. The Beatles, brought the world music which was relatively unheard of at the time.
The planets alligned for the band. Had they banded together five years prior or five years later from the time they joined. We would probably not be talking about the Beatles right now.
I dont want to piss down anyone's chimney. I personally believe the Beatles will be remembered for another thirty years because their music has a universal appeal, is well constructed and distinct.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

WHO is denying that they inspire people? You do not get the difference between inspiring and actually holding a musical influence in bands, because you're a Beatlemaniac.

-AC

Im curious what you mean by that. Isnt inspiring a band to take on a certain persona and style of music the same has having musical influence over them?

Originally posted by Schecter
beatles sucked.

They did not suck. If you don't like them, that's another thing.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
The Beatles are most certainly remembered today for their unprecidented popularity, and (later) social undertones. They are also, however, remembered just as much for their actual music. A bands music cannot prevail for thirty odd years unless it has devestating appeal. Most of the current generations that enjoy The Beatles music dont acknowledge and may not even be aware of the suffocating stranglehold they held over the music industry at one time.

False.

Nobody talks about their music anywhere near as much as the band themselves.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
You are right in saying, The Beatles did nothing amazing in the way of innovation or technique. Very few muscians ever do. The Beatles were no more innovative than Elvis Presley, but are remembered for much of the same reasons. They created good music. The band had great chemistry, an undying stage presence and later delved deep into creativity.
Whether you want to believe it or not. The Beatles, brought the world music which was relatively unheard of at the time.

They didn't, and it's not a matter of wanting to believe it or not. If you want to believe they were the first to do it, do so, you're wrong.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
The planets alligned for the band. Had they banded together five years prior or five years later from the time they joined. We would probably not be talking about the Beatles right now.

That'd be such a shame...

Point is, people act like music today revolves around them, it doesn't, not musically. They didn't do enough musically for that to be the case.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
I dont want to piss down anyone's chimney. I personally believe the Beatles will be remembered for another thirty years because their music has a universal appeal, is well constructed and distinct.

Personally believe you are Batman if it makes you happy. They're remembered cos of their reputation and because people can't let go. If nobody brought them up, they'd not be anywhere near as considered.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Im curious what you mean by that. Isnt inspiring a band to take on a certain persona and style of music the same has having musical influence over them?

Of course not.

Having an actual impact and influence, lasting or otherwise, in sound, is different to "We/I enjoyed them a lot, they inspired me.". Inspiration doesn't have to be musically, it can be generally.

Eg; you can hear how Led Zeppelin INFLUENCED Wolfmother. Whereas you can only make a connection between Opeth and The Beatles because the lead singer likes them (Inspiration), the music isn't influenced by The Beatles.

Originally posted by BobbyD
They did not suck. If you don't like them, that's another thing.

They did. If you like them, that's another thing.

I'm joking, but my point is, you can't say they didn't suck/did suck as if it's a fact. You liking them doesn't mean they didn't suck, either.

-AC

I'm not biased, I like The Beatles. I enjoy their music, I probably always will enjoy it. They're just a good band in my opinion, they're the greatest ever in yours. The place where there's a problem is when you and your kinfolk try putting all this objective credit on them that they do not deserve.

Then again, who are you to say they don't deserve it?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Then again, who are you to say they don't deserve it?