Originally posted by Bardock42For a lot of the reasons stated above, they changed music. I would agree with AC, though, that they were taking ideas from a variety of places and making it popular. But that popularity brought music that would otherwise be out of the mainstream and brought it front and center, which changed music, and that can't be denied. Just because they weren't necessarily the first people to it (even though they were in many cases), their influence on an entire generation of musicians was massive.
Why?
Also, there was the way The Beatles changed their music from album to album and their audience didn't abandon them for it. If someone listened to say, Revolver, and didn't like it, they assumed that the problem laid with them and not the band, and so they grew with the music, that's how influential they were. That's not something many, if any bands today could get away with.
And that's just the music itself. They influenced the recording of music immensely as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_influence_on_music_recording
So no, I don't think they're overrated.
Originally posted by Strangelove
For a lot of the reasons stated above, they changed music. I would agree with AC, though, that they were taking ideas from a variety of places and making it popular. But that popularity brought music that would otherwise be out of the mainstream and brought it front and center, which changed music, and that can't be denied. Just because they weren't necessarily the first people to it (even though they were in many cases), their influence on an entire generation of musicians was massive.
Then let people credit them for what they did. The mythical idea that they are the best there was, is and will ever be is generally taken as fact by many. This is why they're considered overrated.
It's not uncommon for top 10s to contain more than one album by The Beatles. Now, this may be presumptuous, but nobody generally loves them that much, in 2008, or thinks they are that far superior.
Their influence cannot be accurately judged anymore BECAUSE they are overrated. You judge their influence on everyone naming them, but they've become a band you "have" to name, so it's not really accurate when someone says "The Beatles influenced me.". Ashlee Simpson wears The Beatles t-shirts.
Furthermore, you and millions of others confuse inspiration with influence. The Beatles may have encouraged many people to want to be in a band, but they influenced the music far less than that. The amount of bands inspired by The Beatles Vs the amount of bands who have discernable musical influence are greatly different, you'll see.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Also, there was the way The Beatles changed their music from album to album and their audience didn't abandon them for it. If someone listened to say, Revolver, and didn't like it, they assumed that the problem laid with them and not the band, and so they grew with the music, that's how influential they were. That's not something many, if any bands today could get away with.
A lot of bands do, Radiohead for example.
Originally posted by Strangelove
And that's just the music itself. They influenced the recording of music immensely as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_influence_on_music_recordingSo no, I don't think they're overrated.
So what? Let them bring that up when we're discussing musical recording techniques. They used backmasking, let's throw a party. Furthermore, that's not influence to the degree that marries up with the way they are rated.
That information is relevant to those working in the industry, your average joe doesn't know that. It's like a classically trained actor coming in here and telling us why a role was technically perfect, but we can't relate to it because we don't deal with, nor dabble in, any of that. Thus, people dropping their name, calling them the best band in the history of Earth and overrating them are generally not thinking of their recording techniques. They're basing it on how much they love (Or say they love) the music, or reputation. Mostly reputation, I'd wager.
So like many before, most of The Beatles' accolades are really quite irrelevant when you break down how influential they were to music Vs how influential they have been made to seem.
They didn't do anywhere near as much for music itself as people, and you, would have others believe. They influenced culture more than they influenced music itself, the development of and/or the evolution of.
The Beatles are like old games.
Nobody faults you for enjoying those games and loving them very much, but to say they're still better and more influential than anything since would be utterly ridiculous.
It's like the old "They don't make 'em like The Beatles anymore." argument. Yeah, because they're an old band, and everything they did, in any area, has been way surpassed or become irrelevant. They don't have this mythic right to be regarded as high as they are.
If people want to argue they were the most INSPIRATIONAL band of all time, you have a case. Not musically influential.
-AC
The Sex Pistols did, in effect, create the kind of punk that everyone associates with the word. So there's that.
The music was just quite good, though, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Well, you and I will just have to disagree.
Not really.
You have a counter-argument or you don't. Simple enough.
You brought up their recording and I told you why it isn't relevant.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriI agree, they were very important and helped create that whole image, but the notion that they somehow single-handedly invented punk and the 'image' of punk is rediculous, bands were doing that for ages in the underground scene before. The Sex Pistols just brought it to the public eye, really. Much like what you said about the Beatles; they didn't invent these things, they just popularised them.
The Sex Pistols did, in effect, create the kind of punk that everyone associates with the word. So there's that.The music was just quite good, though, in my opinion.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
I agree, they were very important and helped create that whole image, but the notion that they somehow single-handedly invented punk and the 'image' of punk is rediculous, bands were doing that for ages in the underground scene before. The Sex Pistols just brought it to the public eye, really. Much like what you said about the Beatles; they didn't invent these things, they just popularised them.
Actually, no.
There were not "loads" of bands doing what they did. The Ramones and The Sex Pistols are generally regarded by music historians and fans alike as the bands who created the movement of punk rock music. The Ramones are considered to be the first punk rock band, but that isn't the kind of punk that everyone associates with the word. That's the more apathetic kind. The Sex Pistols made the kind, and were first to make the kind (Arguably) that spawned Black Flag, Minor Threat etc.
The Beatles are not regarded as the first to do anything musically, unless by idiots, because they weren't.
If you are referring to what people call garage rock, then no, because while that not punk rock. It's just "raw" rock 'n' roll, stripped down and such. It's not punk rock.
The Sex Pistols have a much greater claim to have invented what they do than The Beatles.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriWell, there were a lot of bands doing what they did, I know this for a fact since my own father was part of the first punk movement and saw, first hand, bands doing the things the Sex Pistols eventually became well known for before the Sex Pistols were even famous. Seeming this is coming from someone with much higher knowledge than you on the subject, there's nothing you can really say against that, since my evidence comes from a first hand source, while you're simply speculating.
Actually, no.There were not "loads" of bands doing what they did. The Ramones and The Sex Pistols are generally regarded by music historians and fans alike as the bands who created the movement of punk rock music. The Ramones are considered to be the first punk rock band, but that isn't the kind of punk that everyone associates with the word. That's the more apathetic kind. The Sex Pistols made the kind, and were first to make the kind (Arguably) that spawned Black Flag, Minor Threat etc.
The Beatles are not regarded as the first to do anything musically, unless by idiots, because they weren't.
If you are referring to what people call garage rock, then no, because while that not punk rock. It's just "raw" rock 'n' roll, stripped down and such. It's not punk rock.
The Sex Pistols have a much greater claim to have invented what they do than The Beatles.
-AC
Also, seeming you never responded to the evidence I threw up for discussion before on how the Beatles did do something first, I might as well put it up again, since I'd be very interested to see what you have to say against it.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
I do, though, disagree that Proto-Metal was 'happening' as such in 1968, it was still being experimented with by a few bands, but wasn't catching much attention since not many bands wanted to rely on this new sound they'd discovered.Hendrix, Cream, Free, etc. were advancing the sound of 'Hard Rock', but they didn't experiment with Proto-metal the way the Beatles did with the said two songs. 'Helter Skelter' was dubbed the heaviest and dirtiest sounding track of it's time, and it was still a year or so before bands like Black Sabbath started picking this sound up and making something more of it.
In that seemingly small way, I believe The Beatles did change and advance music beyond the way you stated. You may disagree, but that is what I believe from what I know.
Also, the New York Dolls came before the Ramones, so I think they are debatably the 'first' punk band.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Well, there were a lot of bands doing what they did, I know this for a fact since my own father was part of the first punk movement and saw, first hand, bands doing the things the Sex Pistols eventually became well known for before the Sex Pistols were even famous. Seeming this is coming from someone with much higher knowledge than you on the subject, there's nothing you can really say against that, since my evidence comes from a first hand source, while you're simply speculating.
Your "evidence" comes from your dad. There are many, many more music historians who were around at his time and before, who attest to the fact that The Sex Pistols are, for all intents and purposes, the first true punk rock band, in the sense we all associate with the word.
There are elements of what they do that they didn't invent, but that doesn't mean that bands before them were punk rock bands. As I said, a lot of what came before is attributed to garage rock, not punk.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
I do, though, disagree that Proto-Metal was 'happening' as such in 1968, it was still being experimented with by a few bands, but wasn't catching much attention since not many bands wanted to rely on this new sound they'd discovered.Hendrix, Cream, Free, etc. were advancing the sound of 'Hard Rock', but they didn't experiment with Proto-metal the way the Beatles did with the said two songs. 'Helter Skelter' was dubbed the heaviest and dirtiest sounding track of it's time, and it was still a year or so before bands like Black Sabbath started picking this sound up and making something more of it.
It was dubbed the dirtiest sounding track because of their (Or should I say George Martin's) production advances. It didn't contain anything truly innovative musically. Black Sabbath played and sounded as they did because of the way they specifically tuned, played and wrote their music. It wasn't production. Tony Iommi had to loosen his strings because he had fake fingertips, also.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
In that seemingly small way, I believe The Beatles did change and advance music beyond the way you stated. You may disagree, but that is what I believe from what I know.
Well exactly, what you know.
Obviously that's not a tremendous amount in this case.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Also, the New York Dolls came before the Ramones, so I think they are debatably the 'first' punk band.
There wasn't anything "punk" about them in any sense. Musically nor visually. They were glamourous, outlandish, slightly transgender, but never "punk".
They cast themselves out of the norm by choosing to be outlandishly different. "Punk" derived from people like The Sex Pistols actually not caring how they looked nor acted, and was a derogatory term. "Punk" rock, rock of those people would call punks.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriWell those historians can say what they like, and most people will take their word for it. Most of them probably weren't directly linked to the origins of punk much at all, although I'm obviously just assuming that. Personally I'm going with my father's first hand experiences, but that's because I know I can trust them, I'm not going to ask you to trust them because you have no reason to, and that makes sense. I'm not saying the Sex Pistols weren't one of the first proper UK 'punk' bands, I'm saying they were just the first UK punk band to come to the public eye.
Your "evidence" comes from your dad. There are many, many more music historians who were around at his time and before, who attest to the fact that The Sex Pistols are, for all intents and purposes, the first true punk rock band, in the sense we all associate with the word.There are elements of what they do that they didn't invent, but that doesn't mean that bands before them were punk rock bands. As I said, a lot of what came before is attributed to garage rock, not punk.
It was dubbed the dirtiest sounding track because of their (Or should I say George Martin's) production advances. It didn't contain anything truly innovative musically. Black Sabbath played and sounded as they did because of the way they specifically tuned, played and wrote their music. It wasn't production. Tony Iommi had to loosen his strings because he had fake fingertips, also.
Well exactly, what you know.
Obviously that's not a tremendous amount in this case.
There wasn't anything "punk" about them in any sense. Musically nor visually. They were glamourous, outlandish, slightly transgender, but never "punk".
They cast themselves out of the norm by choosing to be outlandishly different. "Punk" derived from people like The Sex Pistols actually not caring how they looked nor acted, and was a derogatory term. "Punk" rock, rock of those people would call punks.
-AC [/B]
The Sex Pistols, before they were publicly known, played the music they'd eventually evolve into the music they became famous for in various clubs/gigs around London, along with a number of other bands who were following in the footsteps of the Ramones, who I do believe are the first 'True' punk band, in the traditional sense (I do believe the New York Dolls are Proto-punk, though). They were factually not the single first UK punk band ever to be formed. They just brought the image and attitude into peoples faces, which is why they are considered so important and that.
Of course, it's kind of hard to pinpoint exactly who the first punk band was in a wider sense, since you have to take bands such as the Velvet Underground and especially The Stooges into consideration - not only did the Stooges music sound like what would turn into punk, the attitude and 'uncaring'-ness was there too. If Iggy Pop going through whole shows half-naked, insulting the crowd, and even starting fights with some members of the crowd isn't what most people seem to define as 'punk', what is?
I completely understand the 'garage' thing too, and that is a very, very good point, so in a lot of ways you are correct about the Sex Pistols being the first 'punk' band, but that's only through media attribution. Their music sounded like their fellow garage bands' music, as was their image, it was just them specifically which got picked up on and then dubbed punk. I'm not disagreeing with you on what punk is called by the media. I'm disagreeing with what it is in terms of where it came from, but also what it meant to those involved.
I guess there isn't much point in debating about the Beatles importance anymore, since I don't see either of us wanting to change out opinions on the matter. While I agree with you on most of your points about them, you can't completely write them off as not changing music at all in any way, since that's ridiculous to say about any band that influential, really. And it was actually Lennon's idea to make 'Revolution' that dirty and heavy sounding - he plugged the guitar directly into the recording console, overloading the channel.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Well those historians can say what they like, and most people will take their word for it. Most of them probably weren't directly linked to the origins of punk much at all, although I'm obviously just assuming that. Personally I'm going with my father's first hand experiences, but that's because I know I can trust them, I'm not going to ask you to trust them because you have no reason to, and that makes sense. I'm not saying the Sex Pistols weren't one of the first proper UK 'punk' bands, I'm saying they were just the first UK punk band to come to the public eye.The Sex Pistols, before they were publicly known, played the music they'd eventually evolve into the music they became famous for in various clubs/gigs around London, along with a number of other bands who were following in the footsteps of the Ramones, who I do believe are the first 'True' punk band, in the traditional sense (I do believe the New York Dolls are Proto-punk, though). They were factually not the single first UK punk band ever to be formed. They just brought the image and attitude into peoples faces, which is why they are considered so important and that.
The Ramones were the first ever in terms of chronology and in terms of creating the Green Day style of punk. Apathy etc, not rebellion.
That was The Sex Pistols.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Of course, it's kind of hard to pinpoint exactly who the first punk band was in a wider sense, since you have to take bands such as the Velvet Underground and especially The Stooges into consideration - not only did the Stooges music sound like what would turn into punk, the attitude and 'uncaring'-ness was there too. If Iggy Pop going through whole shows half-naked, insulting the crowd, and even starting fights with some members of the crowd isn't what most people seem to define as 'punk', what is?
The Stooges were more what is considered garage rock.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
I completely understand the 'garage' thing too, and that is a very, very good point, so in a lot of ways you are correct about the Sex Pistols being the first 'punk' band, but that's only through media attribution. Their music sounded like their fellow garage bands' music, as was their image, it was just them specifically which got picked up on and then dubbed punk. I'm not disagreeing with you on what punk is called by the media. I'm disagreeing with what it is in terms of where it came from, but also what it meant to those involved.
Well, no. It didn't sound like fellow garage rock bands because it was heralded as brand new. If it were akin to their peers, they'd have been looked upon as such.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
I guess there isn't much point in debating about the Beatles importance anymore, since I don't see either of us wanting to change out opinions on the matter. While I agree with you on most of your points about them, you can't completely write them off as not changing music at all in any way, since that's ridiculous to say about any band that influential, really. And it was actually Lennon's idea to make 'Revolution' that dirty and heavy sounding - he plugged the guitar directly into the recording console, overloading the channel.
Why can't you? If there isn't a discernable way that they had this huge influence on musical evolution, why should you say they did?
Exactly, it was an audio/recording technique.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriI don't see the point in continuing. I said my piece, you said yours, and the likelihood of changing each others' minds is pretty much nil. Any counter arguments that either of us would have from this point on would pretty much just be repeating what we said before, and pardon me if I feel like sparing myself that tedium.
Not really.You have a counter-argument or you don't. Simple enough.
You brought up their recording and I told you why it isn't relevant.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriAlthough I would like to point out something here; you argue that the Beatles aren't musically influential because bands were inspired by them but not influenced by them. And then you turn around and say that the recording techniques of music aren't relevant because the "average joe" doesn't know about them. Well, we weren't talking about average joes, were we? We were talking about influence on other musicians. And the Beatles developed/discovered many recording techniques (e.g. auto double-tracking, tape loops, backwards vocal/guitar, flanging, use of the Moog synthesizer, etc.) that hadn't been heard of before, and because of their popularity, it allowed those techniques to become mainstream and as a result, bands starting using them.
You brought up their recording and I told you why it isn't relevant.-AC
So to discount recording techniques because the "average joe" doesn't know about them is quite ridiculous when we were talking about a band's influence on other musicians.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriAgain, you're just looking at this by a completely concrete view that everything you've learned that is completely factual. It may seem like the Sex Pistols invented this stuff, but they were just the ones who got picked up on because, perhaps, they were the best at it. It had a lot to do with luck that the Pistols got a manager, he could have chosen a few other bands to decide to make famous. The Sex Pistols were very much influenced by their peers, who were most likely in turn influenced by them, the way the hardcore punk bands they influenced did to each other.The Ramones were the first ever in terms of chronology and in terms of creating the Green Day style of punk. Apathy etc, not rebellion.
That was The Sex Pistols.
The Stooges were more what is considered garage rock.
Well, no. It didn't sound like fellow garage rock bands because it was heralded as brand new. If it were akin to their peers, they'd have been looked upon as such.
Why can't you? If there isn't a discernable way that they had this huge influence on musical evolution, why should you say they did?
Exactly, it was an audio/recording technique.
-AC [/B]
Yeah, the Stooges were considered under the garage rock genre by music historians. How about you step away from these labels and look at them: How weren't they 'punk'? Yeah, they don't fall strictly under one of your two categories of punk, "Apathetic" or "Rebellious", they were in every way what bands like the Sex Pistols became famous for: the self-deprecating lifestyle and dirty, loud music with political undertones (Compare "Search and Destroy", "Anarchy in the UK, and "Blitzkrieg Bop" - while in subject matter they're all different, they are still comparable in the idea behind them).
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Again, you're just looking at this by a completely concrete view that everything you've learned that is completely factual. It may seem like the Sex Pistols invented this stuff, but they were just the ones who got picked up on because, perhaps, they were the best at it. It had a lot to do with luck that the Pistols got a manager, he could have chosen a few other bands to decide to make famous. The Sex Pistols were very much influenced by their peers, who were most likely in turn influenced by them, the way the hardcore punk bands they influenced did to each other.
So what? Being influenced by people who came before does not mean that you are making the same music as they did.
The Sex Pistols sound notably different to any band that came before them in enough ways to be considered new. That's there to be heard, you don't need history lessons. Listen to the bands that came before and then listen to The Sex Pistols.
You are taking what your dad says as factual, when for all we know, he's just bitter that he didn't make it.
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Yeah, the Stooges were considered under the garage rock genre by music historians. How about you step away from these labels and look at them: How weren't they 'punk'? Yeah, they don't fall strictly under one of your two categories of punk, "Apathetic" or "Rebellious", they were in every way what bands like the Sex Pistols became famous for: the self-deprecating lifestyle and dirty, loud music with political undertones (Compare "Search and Destroy", "Anarchy in the UK, and "Blitzkrieg Bop" - while in subject matter they're all different, they are still comparable in the idea behind them).
No, they're considered garage rock because of how they sound. I'm not basing this on words and not having heard the music. They sound completely different to punk rock music. They were raw and energetic, but that doesn't make punk rock. The Hives are raw and energetic, for example. They are a more accurate descendant of Iggy & The Stooges than The Sex Pistols.
Listen to these bands, it's all these to be heard.
They weren't a punk band because they didn't have everything that makes a punk band. A pancake isn't a pancake if it just has most of the ingredients, it needs to have them all.
-AC