so, the beatles...

[ed miliband]

they're very easy to hate, i used to hate them a lot. but i reckon they're actually pretty good, and that hate is pretty unfair. i reckon if they stayed a bunch of obscure lads in liverpool but recorded all the same music, people now would be like 'shit, this is pretty good'.

like, i remember a few years ago tropicalia (brazilian psychedelic music) became really popular with the sort of people who dismiss(ed) the beatles, myself included. but as great and weird as it is, tropicalia couldn't have existed without the beatles. same with 60s garage rock and so on.

lennon was the worst beatle, mccartney the best. that's fact. lennon didn't write 'and i love her', 'fool on the hill', 'for no one', 'blackbird', etc. mccartney wrote perfect pop songs because he managed to capture a state between melancholia and happiness, bittersweetness i guess. lennon was a shit hippie bastard, although i'm sure mccartney is/was just as annoying.

[ed miliband]

also teenage beatles fans are bloody annoying. listen to hip hop or something.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

also teenage beatles fans are bloody annoying. listen to hip hop or something.

Sorry.

[thriller]

Rolling Stones are better. Never liked the Beatles at all. I understand what they brought to the field of rock music, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Same thing with Louis Armstrong. Never liked any of his stuff, but without him, be-bop would never have come about.

[Pirate Utopian]

I never hated the Beatles but I get what you mean.

[ed miliband]

rolling stones always seemed to lack something to me. some good songs but a bit dull most of the time.

[citizen of industry]

I remember Oasis getting slammed in the press for claiming they were better than the Beatles. Actually, they were, but that's not taking into account history. Ringo Star plays the drums like a junior high school student, but you have to take them at the time and place.

[ed miliband]

oasis are bloody shite.

boring shite. worst thing to happen to modern music is their 'lad rock' legacy. despise the bastards.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I've been a huge fan since my dad first played Sgt Pepper and the White Album to me when I was about 13 / 14. Also loved the Yellow Submarine movie when I was younger.
I've gotten over the 'how dare you, heresy!' response to people who hate / just don't really like them. I can probably get around to understanding why someone hates them but I could never agree.
Also with you re McCartney and Lennon (the subject of several fights with my other half, who's a scouser :)).

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

*Warning: a 'That bands shit' / 'No, they're not!' style debate may be imminent, please leave by the nearest exit*

[Hit The North]

lennon was the worst beatle, mccartney the best. that's fact. lennon didn't write 'and i love her', 'fool on the hill', 'for no one', 'blackbird', etc. mccartney wrote perfect pop songs because he managed to capture a state between melancholia and happiness, bittersweetness i guess. lennon was a shit hippie bastard, although i'm sure mccartney is/was just as annoying.

Don't be a nob. Lennon was the best Beatle. He wrote Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows, the best bits of A Day In The Life, Strawberry Field Forever, I Am The Walrus, and expanded the musical pallet of pop music more than practically anyone. McCartney was a brilliant writer of melody, but musically more conservative. I think their sweet and sour helped to give the Beatles a musical and lyrical range that most groups could only envy.

Funnily enough, I've just been out walking my dog with The Beatles playing on random on my Walkman. Given that it is more than 40 years old I think much of it still sounds fresh today. Tomorrow Never Knows still sounds like something from another musical dimension.

Best British pop group ever.

[Hit The North]

I remember Oasis getting slammed in the press for claiming they were better than the Beatles. Actually, they were, but that's not taking into account history. Ringo Star plays the drums like a junior high school student, but you have to take them at the time and place.

All the best bits of Oasis were nicked from The Beatles, T.Rex and Slade. Fact.

[citizen of industry]

oasis are bloody shite.

boring shite. worst thing to happen to modern music is their 'lad rock' legacy. despise the bastards.

I agree. But unlike 99.9% of every other bands in the world they actually had the brass to claim they were better than the Beatles. Which was stupid of them, because when they said it, in the late 90's or whatever, they were much worse than a million other bands out there. But I see the point they were making. Find an Oasis song and listen to it, and find a Beatles song and listen to it, and compare the instrumental ability, vocal ability, and recording ability. If you abstract from history, the Beatles aren't very good, but they were quite revolutionary at the time. They also have a relatively short career compared to most famous bands.

[Hit The North]

Find an Oasis song and listen to it, and find a Beatles song and listen to it, and compare the instrumental ability, vocal ability, and recording ability. If you abstract from history, the Beatles aren't very good, but they were quite revolutionary at the time. They also have a relatively short career compared to most famous bands.

WHAT!!!!?

The Beatles beat Oasis hands down when it comes to vocal ability, in the early days creating a vocal harmony style that spawned a zillion imitators. Who do you think Liam tries to sound like? He even copies his phrasing from John Lennon. As for musical composition, the Beatles were famous for the complexity of their compositions compared to any of their peers. Find the guitar parts for a Beatles song and an Oasis song and compare them. Most Oasis songs are pretty basic - not that I'm against simplicity in music.

Recording-wise, Oasis obviously have the advantage of more sophisticated technology and can hardly claim credit for that. Meanwhile, along with producer George Martin, the Beatles were always at the cutting edge of the technology and technique that was available at the time.

But you're right, for their time the Beatles were revolutionary. Meanwhile, for their time, Oasis were reactionary, looking back to the 60s and 70s.

[citizen of industry]

WHAT!!!!?

The Beatles beat Oasis hands down when it comes to vocal ability, in the early days creating a vocal harmony style that spawned a zillion imitators. Who do you think Liam tries to sound like? He even copies his phrasing from John Lennon. As for musical composition, the Beatles were famous for the complexity of their compositions compared to any of their peers. Find the guitar parts for a Beatles song and an Oasis song and compare them. Most Oasis songs are pretty basic - not that I'm against simplicity in music.

Recording-wise, Oasis obviously have the advantage of more sophisticated technology and can hardly claim credit for that. Meanwhile, along with producer George Martin, the Beatles were always at the cutting edge of the technology and technique that was available at the time.

But you're right, for their time the Beatles were revolutionary. Meanwhile, for their time, Oasis were reactionary, looking back to the 60s and 70s.

Oasis were the only ones who made the claim, though, and they're at the bottom of the barrel. Now compare to a band from the same period as Oasis who actually doesn't suck.

[#FF0000]

"The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art."

[Pirate Utopian]

Serious art sucks though.

[Prometeo liberado]

1. The Rolling Stones and The Beatles played two entirely different kinds of music so there is no comparison.
2. Saying that Oasis is "better" than the Beatles is obviously just a matter of taste and/or definition of the word better.
3. And if Oasis is "better" than The Beatles then by logical extension The Jam and /or Paul Weller trumps both these *****es, right?
But of course you know The Monkeys were a tremendous influence on all of them.:thumbup1:.

[thriller]

1. The Rolling Stones and The Beatles played two entirely different kinds of music so there is no comparison.
2. Saying that Oasis is "better" than the Beatles is obviously just a matter of taste and/or definition of the word better.
3. And if Oasis is "better" than The Beatles then by logical extension The Jam and /or Paul Weller trumps both these *****es, right?
But of course you know The Monkeys were a tremendous influence on all of them.:thumbup1:.

That kewl, but I still think the Stones made better rock music than the Beatles. Unless neither were rock bands.

[Prometeo liberado]

That kewl, but I still think the Stones made better rock music than the Beatles. Unless neither were rock bands.

Better is relative. The Beatles primarily made pop albums so in that respect you may be correct.

[Invader Zim]

Oasis were the only ones who made the claim, though, and they're at the bottom of the barrel. Now compare to a band from the same period as Oasis who actually doesn't suck.

Despite what people on here are saying, Oasis far from sucked. Definitely Maybe was one of the best albums of the 90s and, along with a few other albums from the period, was the perfect antidote to the abysmal wave of grunge and other rubbish that had engulfed the music scene in the early 90s (Yes, Nirvana were and remain way over-rated - though, I'll make an exception in their case, they weren't rubbish, just, with the further exception of a few outstanding tracks, dreary). The fact is that Noel Gallagher wrote some of the best pop songs of his generation, just as Lennon/McCartney wrote some of the best pop songs of theirs.

I don't care how many chords in Gallagher's repertoire, or how easy it is to play Live Forever, the song was something else in the mid 90s, a time when utter shit, like Red Hot Chili Peppers, were all over the radio waves like a bad rash.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I can understand hating the hype and romanticization around the Beatles or any number of officially canonized examples of pop-culture. I always have that tendency - I still can't listen to Radiohead or Pink Floyd without going into a murderous rage towards the music because I had a roommate once who wouldn't shut up about them and how great they are.

Musically I like the Beatles though and they remained one of the top bands in an interesting period of musical and cultural flux which IMO makes their music more interesting as well. They were able to synthesize a lot of what was going on in pop at that time and there was a lot going on in pop at that time! In their later albums they could go from near hard-rock of that time on one track to the most saccharine crap ever on the next.

Oasis didn't have much of an impact in the US other than having a few hit singles and allowing a tiny bit of space for Brit-pop on alternative radio in the US - not much space, Creed and Bink-182 and rage-rock were coming, make room! So I was never that into them - liked Pulp though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Despite what people on here are saying, Oasis far from sucked. Definitely Maybe was one of the best albums of the 90s and, along with a few other albums from the period, was the perfect antidote to the abysmal wave of grunge and other rubbish that had engulfed the music scene in the early 90s (Yes, Nirvana were and remain way over-rated - though, I'll make an exception in their case, they weren't rubbish, just, with the further exception of a few outstanding tracks, dreary). The fact is that Noel Gallagher wrote some of the best pop songs of his generation, just as Lennon/McCartney wrote some of the best pop songs of theirs.

I don't care how many chords in Gallagher's repertoire, or how easy it is to play Live Forever, the song was something else in the mid 90s, a time when utter shit, like Red Hot Chili Peppers, were all over the radio waves like a bad rash.

Well maybe the airwaves of the early 90s were bad, but what wasn't on the airwaves was pretty amazing. While the industry was struggling, the underground was doing pretty well IMO.

So I can't really judge Nirvana objectively because I was like 12 or 13 when they became big and it was like God had flooded the culture and reproducing pairs of metalheads and homophobic jock rockers missed their spots on the arc. I can't really separate the music from the associations with a time where hip-hop in my experience went from a gimic used in commercials to the most cacophonous and hard music that was talking about all these things that happen in regular life; where rock songs went from being party-anthems of conspicuous consumption and womanizing sung by models dressed like post-apolcalyptic pirates to guys in sweaters and ripped t-shirts making songs on 8-tracks about shitty boring towns and wanting to escape, being hassled by cops, hating their parents etc.

Of course when something unexpectedly breaks through into pop culture, it is quickly bought-up, duplicated, and then a sort of analogue falling rate of profit thing seems to happen where the new street-tales of hip hop just become crime-fiction and grow stale and the slacker anti-fashion becomes fashion and a universe collapses in another dimension somewhere. The industry really gobbled up grunge before it was able to crawl and people were distancing themselves from that basically as soon as the first A&R reps booked flights to Seattle. But in general it was when regular rock-people started listening to college rock, British rock, and tons of varieties of punk and lo-fi. And of course Hip Hop came later in the decade and has still yet to artistically recover IMO.

[The Douche]

My beef with the Beatles is that they were a sanitized version of mod rock. And I happen to think that md was one of the coolest youth movements to date, so I can listen to early Beatles stuff and appreciate it, but I'd rather just listen to real mod rock/garage bands from the era.

[ed miliband]

Despite what people on here are saying, Oasis far from sucked. Definitely Maybe was one of the best albums of the 90s and, along with a few other albums from the period, was the perfect antidote to the abysmal wave of grunge and other rubbish that had engulfed the music scene in the early 90s (Yes, Nirvana were and remain way over-rated - though, I'll make an exception in their case, they weren't rubbish, just, with the further exception of a few outstanding tracks, dreary). The fact is that Noel Gallagher wrote some of the best pop songs of his generation, just as Lennon/McCartney wrote some of the best pop songs of theirs.

I don't care how many chords in Gallagher's repertoire, or how easy it is to play Live Forever, the song was something else in the mid 90s, a time when utter shit, like Red Hot Chili Peppers, were all over the radio waves like a bad rash.

basically what jimmie higgins said; if you listened to shite to begin with perhaps oasis were a shite alternative to shite you were tired of, but looking back some great music was released in the 90s. i was only i young 'un then mind.

still, i'd say the 90s was the worst decade for music in modern history, and the 00s+ the best.

[ed miliband]

My beef with the Beatles is that they were a sanitized version of mod rock. And I happen to think that md was one of the coolest youth movements to date, so I can listen to early Beatles stuff and appreciate it, but I'd rather just listen to real mod rock/garage bands from the era.

gotcha, but then a lot of garage shit just wouldn't have existed without the "british invasion"; in many ways, the best garage music is the sloppiest, most rudimentary attempts at playing the beatles. dunno, i think the beatles relationship with the mods is more, umm... 'dialectical', than them simply ripping mod shit off.

[Prometeo liberado]

So by y'alls standards then The Who covers all the bases. You get the Mod pedigree with the unmistakable "garage band" sound, right?

[ed miliband]

So by y'alls standards then The Who covers all the bases. You get the Mod pedigree with the unmistakable "garage band" sound, right?

like the rolling stones, i always found the who lacking in something, just a tad boring. i respect 'em because they grew up in/around the same area as me though, 40/50 years earlier mind. you have to respect your elders in that respect.

[Prometeo liberado]

you have to respect your elders in that respect.
No you don't. This is about musical tastes so there is no right or wrong answer. Just good or bad reasoning.

[ed miliband]

No you don't. This is about musical tastes so there is no right or wrong answer. Just good or bad reasoning.

nah i just meant, not quite seriously, it's cool to think they were from the same place, and i vaguely like/respect them for that reason.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

My beef with the Beatles is that they were a sanitized version of mod rock. And I happen to think that md was one of the coolest youth movements to date, so I can listen to early Beatles stuff and appreciate it, but I'd rather just listen to real mod rock/garage bands from the era.
Mod Rock maybe doesn't exist without the Beatles (although Pete Townsend would blanch at the thought). The music of the Beatles was passionate, intense, brilliantly written and sung, and decently produced/played. Ringo wasn't much of a drummer, but he kept good time -- and didn't try to be Billy Cobham. They changed everything in pop music in a very short time.

[Yuppie Grinder]

also teenage beatles fans are bloody annoying. listen to hip hop or something.

I often tell my classmates listening to classic rock that it is not even real music because it isn't made with a computer and therefore has no melody.

The Beatles might have been alright had they learned real instruments like turntables or MPC.

[leftistman]

I've been a huge fan since my dad first played Sgt Pepper and the White Album to me when I was about 13 / 14. Also loved the Yellow Submarine movie when I was younger.
I've gotten over the 'how dare you, heresy!' response to people who hate / just don't really like them. I can probably get around to understanding why someone hates them but I could never agree.
Also with you re McCartney and Lennon (the subject of several fights with my other half, who's a scouser :)).
Same! I have their entire discography, and I'm not very fond of their earlier pop work. I prefer their more psychedelic work from the mid-to-late 60s(Norwegian Wood, I'm Only Sleeping, Across the Universe, I Want You, etc.) My favorite album is probably Let It Be or Revolver. To me, those albums had the perfect combination of acoustic and electric work. I also like that they weren't so polished sounding like some of their other work.

[Pirate Utopian]

I like most of the movies they did. Help!, Yellow Submarine, A Hard Day's Night, those are good movies.

[ed miliband]

I often tell my classmates listening to classic rock that it is not even real music because it isn't made with a computer and therefore has no melody.

The Beatles might have been alright had they learned real instruments like turntables or MPC.

don't forget though, the earliest beatles singles were manipulated (sped up, slowed down, etc.) because the beatles sounded shit. and then they went on to experiment with synths, using the studio "as an instrument" (so to speak), and so on.

so yeah, if the beatles were around today no doubt they'd ditch guitars and drums for turntables, mpcs, laptops, etc.

and all the kids that listen to "classic rock" (thank christ we don't have that sorta scum in the uk really, least not in london), would hate them.

[Ostrinski]

I hate the term classic rock. People who use it usually can't be bothered to understand the distinctions between different genres of music.

Also, the people who answer "classic rock" to the question of what music they like usually have pretty linear tastes in general.

But yeah, I respect the Beatles and listen to them a fair bit, 60's psychedelia is one of my favorite genres. I definitely wold rather listen to The Zombies or Love, but The Beatles are up there for me.

[ed miliband]

'forever changes' is an incredible album

[Ostrinski]

Yeah it's one of my favorites.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Love was great for a couple of albums. Da Capo is great, although not quite as amazing as Forever Changes. Zombies are very good too, although they simply didn't record enough to be ranked with the Beatles. The Stones were a great band too -- different from the Beatles. Obviously not quite as gifted vocally or melodically, but they made some fantastic albums (e.g., Aftermath, Let It Bleed, Beggar's Banquet, Exile on Mainstreet). I also think they were done around 1978.

Oasis made a couple of good albums, but how could you not see that they owed a huge debt to the Beatles? And I agree with the comrade who mentioned the Jam -- they were great, never really caught on in the States, though. Sound Affects is an A+ album.

[black magick hustla]

wow did u read my fb status or what. its comments were filled with cmoney and other dumb punks/skinheads hating the beatles for no reason. Its Not Punk To Hate the Beatles

[Ostrinski]

Love was great for a couple of albums. Da Capo is great, although not quite as amazing as Forever Changes. Zombies are very good too, although they simply didn't record enough to be ranked with the Beatles.Yeah, I guess I'd just say that Odyssey and Oracle and Forever Changes are my two favorite albums in the genre, followed closely by Revolver.

[ed miliband]

wow did u read my fb status or what. its comments were filled with cmoney and other dumb punks/skinheads hating the beatles for no reason. Its Not Punk To Hate the Beatles

not on facebook anymore, should i get my account back to fight them?

[doesn't even make sense]

not on facebook anymore, should i get my account back

the answer is always no

[The Douche]

not on facebook anymore, should i get my account back to fight them?

Yes, you are missing out on some quality trolling from this side of the ocean, what with the election and all.

[Bardo]

I love the beatles.

I grew up with them of course, and the music takes me back everywhere and every time. I don't listen to them nearly as much as I used to though, it's more of a sentimental flashback whenever I hear alot of their music.

[Fawkes]

Whoever said the 90s were shitty needs to get themselves a couple of dnb comps



I think the Beatles were really talented from a technical standpoint, but they're music's so fucking bland. They only completed half the process: they wrote great compositions but didn't inject any soul into them.

[officer nugz]

the beatles are an okay pop band. I don't really like them but if I hear them I don't mind.

the kinks on the other hand are fantastic.

[ed miliband]

I think the Beatles were really talented from a technical standpoint, but they're music's so fucking bland. They only completed half the process: they wrote great compositions but didn't inject any soul into them.

there was a really good compilation that came out last year, 'black america sings the songs of lennon and mccartney' or something like that; 60s and 70s soul, jazz and funk musicians singing/playing beatles songs. it was actually listening to that that convinced me that the beatles had some good stuff, after years of actively disliking them (mostly to be contrarian).

rur3Z6xOk9I

2kI059xdYbg

c4N1KInMPDs

etc.

i reckon other artists do the beatles better than the beatles do the beatles.

[Hit The North]

My beef with the Beatles is that they were a sanitized version of mod rock. And I happen to think that md was one of the coolest youth movements to date, so I can listen to early Beatles stuff and appreciate it, but I'd rather just listen to real mod rock/garage bands from the era.

Well your beef is entirely mistaken as the Beatles predate mod by nearly two years and no one, apart from you, has ever called them a sanitised version of mod. The Beatles were predominantly a rock n roll band, inspired by Elvis, Buddy Holly, etc. The mod bands were mainly inspired by black R'n'B and belonged to a later and different scene.

[The Douche]

Well your beef is entirely mistaken as the Beatles predate mod by nearly two years and no one, apart from you, has ever called them a sanitised version of mod. The Beatles were predominantly a rock n roll band, inspired by Elvis, Buddy Holly, etc. The mod bands were mainly inspired by black R'n'B and belonged to a later and different scene.

Dude, a simple review of pictures of the Beatles, much less a listen to their early music, clearly demonstrates a relationship to mod.

[Hit The North]

Then given the chronology you will have to reverse your opinion and see the Beatles as a major influence on the mod scene, rather than a watered down version.

First Beatles single: Love Me Do (1962)

First Kinks single: You Really Got Me (1964)

First Who single: My Generation (1965)

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The Beatles were connected with the earlier Teddy Boy scene (after it crested)-I forget the details but sometime in the late 50s the Teddys trashed Brighton, literally took over the town while the Torys were having their convention.As indirect retaliation a Teddy was hung, the last execution in Britain. After this the scene dwindled. The Beatles were something of a late offshoot of this scene.

As I understand the mods were Teddys 2.0.

The Who came out of the rocker scene, a rival subculture to the mods.

[ed miliband]

don't want this mods vs. teddies vs. rockers shit in my thread. that was before even my parents time ffs.

[Hit The North]

The Beatles were connected with the earlier Teddy Boy scene (after it crested)-I forget the details but sometime in the late 50s the Teddys trashed Brighton, literally took over the town while the Torys were having their convention.As indirect retaliation a Teddy was hung, the last execution in Britain. After this the scene dwindled. The Beatles were something of a late offshoot of this scene.

As I understand the mods were Teddys 2.0.

The Who came out of the rocker scene, a rival subculture to the mods.

I'm not sure about your story re. the Teds, but anyone in the UK in the late 50s who liked rocknroll was a Teddy Boy. John Lennon was for a time.

As for the Who, they were not rockers they were the premier Mod band.

re.my earlier post, as evidence of the Beatles influence, here is Pete Townshend talking about how they influenced him:

Whx88hxOROk

[The Douche]

Then given the chronology you will have to reverse your opinion and see the Beatles as a major influence on the mod scene, rather than a watered down version.

First Beatles single: Love Me Do (1962)

First Kinks single: You Really Got Me (1964)

First Who single: My Generation (1965)

Mod was starting to kick off in the early 60s (because, just like skinhead is usually seen to have "started" in 69, I know mods who were cropping their hair short and sporting boots as early as 67), and as for all the teds/rockers vs. mods stuff, there was originally some overlap between teds and what would become mods, and even, to some extent, mixing between early mods and rockers as all the youth subcultures at the time had an affinity for motown and soul.

Perhaps watered down or sanitized is the wrong word to use, but the beatles certainly represented a safer version of English youth culture (whether we want to call it mod or not).

[#FF0000]

The Beatles are just terribly overrated is all.

Also fuck anyone who says Ringo is the worst beatle. he wasn't a flashy drummer at all but you could set a metronome to him. he had nearly perfect tempo.

[Hit The North]

Perhaps watered down or sanitized is the wrong word to use, but the beatles certainly represented a safer version of English youth culture (whether we want to call it mod or not).

When they exploded on the scene, the music was dubbed as Mersey Beat and was a style that was not just restricted to the Beatles, but a host of other bands such as The Merseybeats (surprise, surprise), Dave Clark Five, The Searchers, Freddie and the Dreamers, the Hollies and the Tremeloes. It would just be inaccurate to call the Beatles mod.

But they were definitely safer than actual mod bands like the Who or the Small Faces or Them. But the sixties became more radical and dangerous in all sorts of ways as they progressed. It is worthwhile noting how safe pop music was, though, between Elvis going into the army and the emergence of the Beatles. After the original wave of rock n roll subsided in the late 50s the charts on both sides of the Atlantic were dominated by very sanitised acts like the Everly Brothers or Cliff Richard as tin pan alley and elderly show biz moguls attempted to regain control over popular entertainment. In Britain if you were working class (as most of the singers were) you were groomed to lose your accent and assume a neutral middle class persona. The Beatles and the wave of bands they came out of turned their faces against this manicured blandness and, for the time, represented an authentic working class presence that was seen as both evocative (by the fans) and subversive (by the Establishment). But obviously, they had seen nothing yet. Within five years there was Hendrix, The Doors, Pink Floyd and others, pushing the limits way beyond anything the Beatles had done.

[The Douche]

When they exploded on the scene, the music was dubbed as Mersey Beat and was a style that was not just restricted to the Beatles, but a host of other bands such as The Merseybeats (surprise, surprise), Dave Clark Five, The Searchers, Freddie and the Dreamers, the Hollies and the Tremeloes. It would just be inaccurate to call the Beatles mod.

But they were definitely safer than actual mod bands like the Who or the Small Faces or Them. But the sixties became more radical and dangerous in all sorts of ways as they progressed. It is worthwhile noting how safe pop music was, though, between Elvis going into the army and the emergence of the Beatles. After the original wave of rock n roll subsided in the late 50s the charts on both sides of the Atlantic were dominated by very sanitised acts like the Everly Brothers or Cliff Richard as tin pan alley and elderly show biz moguls attempted to regain control over popular entertainment. In Britain if you were working class (as most of the singers were) you were groomed to lose your accent and assume a neutral middle class persona. The Beatles and the wave of bands they came out of turned their faces against this manicured blandness and, for the time, represented an authentic working class presence that was seen as both evocative (by the fans) and subversive (by the Establishment). But obviously, they had seen nothing yet. Within five years there was Hendrix, The Doors, Pink Floyd and others, pushing the limits way beyond anything the Beatles had done.

Perhaps I am to critical because I am looking backwards from now to the beatles, as opposed to looking at the beatles to the present.

[leftistman]

wow did u read my fb status or what. its comments were filled with cmoney and other dumb punks/skinheads hating the beatles for no reason. Its Not Punk To Hate the Beatles
Kurt Cobain and the Ramones loved them.

[cynicles]

Janis Joplin > All

End of story.

[officer nugz]

Kurt Cobain and the Ramones loved them.the Ramones liked the Bay City Rollers. they had a very quirky poppy music taste.

[Invader Zim]

basically what jimmie higgins said; if you listened to shite to begin with perhaps oasis were a shite alternative to shite you were tired of, but looking back some great music was released in the 90s. i was only i young 'un then mind.

still, i'd say the 90s was the worst decade for music in modern history, and the 00s+ the best.

The idea that, in order to appreciate a good pop song, you must be ignorant of, or fail to be aware of alternatives, is just pure unadulterated shit. But you're right that a lot of great music was released in the 90s, and not all of it was popular. That doesn't alter the fact that Oasis during the mid 90s produced two seminal albums (though it all went horribly wrong in 1997 - too much cocaine). The fact is I'd rather listen to Definitely Maybe than In the Aeroplane Over the Sea or Wowee Zowee (to offer two examples of what is typically cited as 'really great' music) - not that I dislike them (quite the reverse) or whatever is down with the indie or scene kids from that period.

Basically, it is like suggesting that it is impossible, today, to like, say, Florence and the Machine while also liking a band like An Horse (whom 99.9% of Florence and the Machine fans will have never heard of).

[L.A.P.]

Wow, I seriously just learned a shit load about music in this thread. I've realized how much I really know jack shit about rock music.

I get the impression radio music was really annoying in the 90's, but being born in 94 and discovering grunge in 2009-2010, I seriously like Nirvana, Alice In Chains, Mudhoney, etc. Bands like Stone Temple Pilots suck though.

[ed miliband]

The idea that, in order to appreciate a good pop song, you must be ignorant of, or fail to be aware of alternatives, is just pure unadulterated shit. But you're right that a lot of great music was released in the 90s, and not all of it was popular. That doesn't alter the fact that Oasis during the mid 90s produced two seminal albums (though it all went horribly wrong in 1997 - too much cocaine). The fact is I'd rather listen to Definitely Maybe than In the Aeroplane Over the Sea or Wowee Zowee (to offer two examples of what is typically cited as 'really great' music) - not that I dislike them (quite the reverse) or whatever is down with the indie or scene kids from that period.

Basically, it is like suggesting that it is impossible, today, to like, say, Florence and the Machine while also liking a band like An Horse (whom 99.9% of Florence and the Machine fans will have never heard of).

yeah, you're totally correct here.


but too much cocaine? how is that possible? i mean... too much cocaine gave us fleetwood mac's two best albums.

[officer nugz]

oasis are bloody shite.

boring shite. worst thing to happen to modern music is their 'lad rock' legacy. despise the bastards.the worst thing to happen to modern music as far as its legacy goes is grunge. more because of what it inspired than even the music itself.

[Philosophos]

they're very easy to hate, i used to hate them a lot. but i reckon they're actually pretty good, and that hate is pretty unfair. i reckon if they stayed a bunch of obscure lads in liverpool but recorded all the same music, people now would be like 'shit, this is pretty good'.

like, i remember a few years ago tropicalia (brazilian psychedelic music) became really popular with the sort of people who dismiss(ed) the beatles, myself included. but as great and weird as it is, tropicalia couldn't have existed without the beatles. same with 60s garage rock and so on.

lennon was the worst beatle, mccartney the best. that's fact. lennon didn't write 'and i love her', 'fool on the hill', 'for no one', 'blackbird', etc. mccartney wrote perfect pop songs because he managed to capture a state between melancholia and happiness, bittersweetness i guess. lennon was a shit hippie bastard, although i'm sure mccartney is/was just as annoying.

Well I like their music but they were hypocrites. They were "fighting" the system, they were rebels with long hair etc etc and when the queen invited them to become knights or whatever they just regularly went...

It's like I'm saying I'm left but I really liked that missunderstood guy called Stalin or Churchill or that the GD is just bad with words but the people in there are meaning well....

[ed miliband]

the worst thing to happen to modern music as far as its legacy goes is grunge. more because of what it inspired than even the music itself.

i mostly agree but... grunge left us this stuff:

http://www.buttmagazine.com/magazine/interviews/john-holland/

+ salem's music i can't be arsed to link to, but it's amazing.

[citizen of industry]

the worst thing to happen to modern music as far as its legacy goes is grunge. more because of what it inspired than even the music itself.

If you are talking about Nirvana you have to look at the scene they came out of, not the mainstream crap that rode on their coattails and had the label "Grunge" attached to them by record labels. Grunge bands like Mudhoney, L7, Sonic Youth, The Supersuckers, The Pixies, etc. were great.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I was born the year the Beatles broke up, and I always heard their songs on the radio when I was little. I fell in love with their music then. When I was a teenager in the mid-'80s and their albums were re-released on CD, I was first in line at the record store for them.

[Hit The North]

Well I like their music but they were hypocrites. They were "fighting" the system, they were rebels with long hair etc etc and when the queen invited them to become knights or whatever they just regularly went...


They were given CBE's by the British state which was remarkable for a pop group. However, they publicly handed them back in protest against the Vietnam war.

I'm not sure they were hypocrites, necessarily. I mean they were on a huge learning curve, not only about themselves but also the potential of the culture they represented. Before the Beatles, the Stones and Bob Dylan, music was just an adjunct of the light entertainment industry. Dylan was the first to evoke a public politics through his music in the sixties and the Beatles, who were never overtly political as a band, took a few lessons from him.

There was also the question of publicly extolling drug use which was considered culturally revolutionary at the time.

[Invader Zim]

If you are talking about Nirvana you have to look at the scene they came out of, not the mainstream crap that rode on their coattails and had the label "Grunge" attached to them by record labels. Grunge bands like Mudhoney, L7, Sonic Youth, The Supersuckers, The Pixies, etc. were great.


Pixies and Sonic Youth, grunge? No. While basically every grunge band tried to plagiarise them (in the same manner that every modern indie band has tried to plagiarise Joy Division and the Smiths) they were never grunge. For a start, they were good, which automatically excludes them from being grunge.

[Hit The North]

To my mind, Nevermind is one of the great commercial rock albums of all time. There isn't a weak track on it and it still sounds cool as school. What separates Nirvana from most of the other 'grunge' bands is the nihilistic cultural critique at the heart of Cobain's lyrics and the fact that they could pen a decent hookline.

I agree with Zim that Sonic Youth and the Pixies were not grunge. SY came out of New York's 'No Wave' scene whilst the Pixies were just out there on their own. Cobain has admitted that Nirvana ripped off the Pixies style. Meanwhile, Sonic Youth were quite taken with 'Nevermind' and appropriated its style for their album, 'Dirty':

N3gN9Up6hmc

[citizen of industry]

To my mind, Nevermind is one of the great commercial rock albums of all time. There isn't a weak track on it and it still sounds cool as school. What separates Nirvana from most of the other 'grunge' bands is the nihilistic cultural critique at the heart of Cobain's lyrics and the fact that they could pen a decent hookline.

I agree with Zim that Sonic Youth and the Pixies were not grunge. SY came out of New York's 'No Wave' scene whilst the Pixies were just out there on their own. Cobain has admitted that Nirvana ripped off the Pixies style. Meanwhile, Sonic Youth were quite taken with 'Nevermind' and appropriated its style for their album, 'Dirty':

N3gN9Up6hmc

Yeah, they were friendly and toured together. In my head at least they are inseparable. In the end, I guess you can reduce the whole thing to the Sub-Pop label. In my kiddie days in Portland I was big on Mudhoney and L7. Their shows were fantastic. But the whole grunge thing doesn't hold a candle to punk and was basically corporate manufactured by 1990.

[The Douche]

They were given CBE's by the British state which was remarkable for a pop group. However, they publicly handed them back in protest against the Vietnam war.

I'm not sure they were hypocrites, necessarily. I mean they were on a huge learning curve, not only about themselves but also the potential of the culture they represented. Before the Beatles, the Stones and Bob Dylan, music was just an adjunct of the light entertainment industry. Dylan was the first to evoke a public politics through his music in the sixties and the Beatles, who were never overtly political as a band, took a few lessons from him.

There was also the question of publicly extolling drug use which was considered culturally revolutionary at the time.

Woody Guthrie? I'm sure other countries and cultures had an equivalent... There are also tunes like this:

EI3u80z1qKo

Which don't necessarily have a political content (since I don't think "anti-fascism" of itself is political), but nonetheless.

[Yurt]

I'd never properly listened to them until a couple of months ago. I got Sgt. Pepper and Revolver; straight away I could tell why they are such classics. Massive influence on later music is a given, but also genuinely enjoyable to listen to. Not the sort of thing I'd listen to every day but definitely worth having in the record collection!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Don't think there's too much wrong with The Beatles' music. They're undoubtedly a very good band in terms of the quality of their composition, singing and performance. Obviously, they don't have the 'image' that, you know, some 'rebellious' people like. But I think they're a good band.

Rolling Stones annoy me so much. I cannot stand that eco-hipster Jagger and his skinny jeans. I find his voice like water - neither here nor there, and their songs just seem to lack gravitas for me, though admittedly i've not listened to their back catalogue.

Wish Buddy Holly had lived, he'd have shown them that rock n roll could exist in the 60s without resorting to, you know, pop-style inventions.

[Comrades Unite!]

I enjoy The Beatles past- Rubber Soul, Anything before that is not what I'm into.

SGT.Peppers and The White Album are fucking amazing pieces of work right there though.

[Comrades Unite!]

Don't think there's too much wrong with The Beatles' music. They're undoubtedly a very good band in terms of the quality of their composition, singing and performance. Obviously, they don't have the 'image' that, you know, some 'rebellious' people like. But I think they're a good band.

Rolling Stones annoy me so much. I cannot stand that eco-hipster Jagger and his skinny jeans. I find his voice like water - neither here nor there, and their songs just seem to lack gravitas for me, though admittedly i've not listened to their back catalogue.

Wish Buddy Holly had lived, he'd have shown them that rock n roll could exist in the 60s without resorting to, you know, pop-style inventions.

For the Rolling Stones I love Beggars Banquet to Exile on Main street.
I don't go above that much.

[Hit The North]

Woody Guthrie? I'm sure other countries and cultures had an equivalent... There are also tunes like this:

Yeah, I was referring to modern popular music (post 1955?). Obviously there was political music before Dylan.


Which don't necessarily have a political content (since I don't think "anti-fascism" of itself is political), but nonetheless.


If taking an anti-fascist stance is not political then what is it?



Rolling Stones annoy me so much. I cannot stand that eco-hipster Jagger and his skinny jeans. I find his voice like water - neither here nor there, and their songs just seem to lack gravitas for me, though admittedly i've not listened to their back catalogue.


It's generally accepted that nothing the Stones released after 1974 is worth a light compared to their 1960s output.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I find it difficult to really like music (like, more than the odd track) if I don't buy into an artist's story. I don't mean a sob story, but there has to be some inspiration there for me, otherwise the lyrics are just meaningless and the appreciation for how they put the music together starts to wane.

I don't really buy into Mick Jagger. I think The Beatles are more accessible in that regard - the relationship between Lennon and McCartney made for some excellent musicianship and creativity. SGT Pepper was a cracking album in that regard. Kinda insane.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

90s were all about Green Day and, later on into the 2000s, Blink 182.

Not even feeling guilty 'bout saying that. They're such a gateway into certain elements of punk rock, along with people like NOFX.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The fact is I'd rather listen to Definitely Maybe than In the Aeroplane Over the Sea or Wowee Zowee (to offer two examples of what is typically cited as 'really great' music) - not that I dislike them (quite the reverse) or whatever is down with the indie or scene kids from that period.

Blasphemer!

First, I'd listen to Different Class over any other brit-pop album from that era. Second, Pavement is the only "Indie" that has actually held up and is better now than when first produced. And Wowee Zowee is objectivly better to listen to on LSD than Oasis which end up sounding like the Beatles singing from the bottom of a well. I don't know, no two acid trips are the same unless you play and Oaisis ablum next to a Pavement one and then Oasis just makes your trip instantly suck. Wierd, but fact.

Also no indie kids at the time were listening to Aeroplane Over the Sea - they were listening to Pavement and (pre-VH1) Modest Mouse and Wu-Tang (not yet ironically).

For some reason hipsters before 2000 favored turntablism and hip-hop to rock and then the milenium happened and it was all yukuleeles and and unicycles and shit and no one would be caught dead listening to hip-hop except in quazi-racist irony.

Persoanlly I really didn't like rock between 1997 and 2007 aside from some minor exceptions. In the 00s it was either way too 80s or way too precious and elitist. Rock is much better now than it has been in a decade and a half; kids in SF doing drugs and playing their own takes on old blues and rock riffs so loud you won't be able to hear in the morning. Give me punk or gargage when it comes to rock: something dirty and grungy that I can smoke and mosh to.


prKbgzEO9ko
SgOJxSMTWsk

^Not Little Richard or the Beatles and yes derivitive of both, but Rock has always been about passion in performance and synthesis in style and form, not originality.


90s were all about Green Day and, later on into the 2000s, Blink 182.

Not even feeling guilty 'bout saying that. They're such a gateway into certain elements of punk rock, along with people like NOFX.

You punk rock reformist! You pogoing Kautskyite!:lol:

[Hit The North]

The Stones have an interesting history, though. The death of their hippest member, Brian Jones; glamorous drug arrests; Marianne Faithful and the famous Mars bar masturbation scandal; the tragic murder of a black fan by Hell's Angels at the Altamont festival:

0qTKsylrpsg

There was an air of menace hanging over the Stones in the late 60s/early 70s and, at their height, they were the archetypal rock band.

[bcbm]

the tragic murder of a black fan by Hell's Angels at the Altamont festival

dude pulled a gun...

[∞]

ima keepit one hunned Yeah furreal i dunt listen to anyo that biggie and nas and nwa shit but without dem they be no trap music.

[Jimmie Higgins]

One thing about 90s music (that I don't know if it still really applies) was the emphasis on street-cred. Oasis were boasting about being the real "lads", hip-hop artists all stumbled over eachother trying to show that they were actually former (or still) gangsters and that their street-tales were fact, and in punk it was the same sort of thing. I grew up about a 2 hour drive outside of the Bay Area, but the funny thing before Green Day came out was that lots of punks shit-talked Rancid as the sell-out band and then Green Day was suddenly all over the radio all the time. It's funny, because this obsession must have tired everyone out because everyone complained about ICE-Cube being "soft" and rancid being "too pop" but a few years later it was all like boy bands and teeny-bopper hip-hop.

It seems like that cred-obsession doesn't exist as much anymore except for that stereotype of hipsters who only like bands as far as it helps the hipster seem more obscure and knowledgeable than anyone else in the room. Am I just old - are people still obsessed with street-cred in music? Or did we all get worn-out by it in the 1990s - was it because street-cred meant that our damaged romantic rock-stars killed themselves and our street-tale rappers got shot?

[∞]

One thing about 90s music (that I don't know if it still really applies) was the emphasis on street-cred. Oasis were boasting about being the real "lads", hip-hop artists all stumbled over eachother trying to show that they were actually former (or still) gangsters and that their street-tales were fact, and in punk it was the same sort of thing. I grew up about a 2 hour drive outside of the Bay Area, but the funny thing before Green Day came out was that lots of punks shit-talked Rancid as the sell-out band and then Green Day was suddenly all over the radio all the time. It's funny, because this obsession must have tired everyone out because everyone complained about ICE-Cube being "soft" and rancid being "too pop" but a few years later it was all like boy bands and teeny-bopper hip-hop.

It seems like that cred-obsession doesn't exist as much anymore except for that stereotype of hipsters who only like bands as far as it helps the hipster seem more obscure and knowledgeable than anyone else in the room. Am I just old - are people still obsessed with street-cred in music? Or did we all get worn-out by it in the 1990s - was it because street-cred meant that our damaged romantic rock-stars killed themselves and our street-tale rappers got shot?

Now we got officer Ricky thinking hes a coke-mafioso.

[Pirate Utopian]

I like Rick Ross. I don't really care about street cred, I just want ignorant trap shit for me to wild out to.

[∞]

His voice is kinda cool. But his rhymes are so sloppy and over-the-top, that I lose interest. When I'm in the mood for flashy, gaudy, yet somehow awesome rhymes, I bump that Dipset shit. I'm rarely in the mood anymore for trap music its all sounding the same to me now. Except Juicy J, his rhymes are funny and cool.

[Zanthorus]

The thing that stands out in the Beatles catalogue to me is their increasing focus on the album as the unit of artistic production rather than the single. Sergeant Peppers may not be a concept album as such, but it does seem to represent an attempt to create something that was more than simply a collection of potential singles, and of course there are tracks like 'A Day in the Life' which attempt to reach beyond the usual boundaries of form of the traditional three minute pop song. It's clear that bands like Yes and Genesis took quite a bit from listening to the Beatles in their 70's output, and of course there's also the Indian mysticism connection linking in to the concept of Tales from Topographic Oceans. As to the band themselves I used to listen to them a lot because I enjoyed the whimsical and somewhat childlike vibe of some of their material, but with the older progressive rock bands one can get a similar vibe with music which has much more sustained interest in other areas as well, and as a bonus point I get to annoy boring people who think that rock music should only ever be 'earthy', 'gritty' and whatever else.

[Take The Long Way Home]

also teenage beatles fans are bloody annoying. listen to hip hop or something.

and what makes you wanna say that? If we like good music,you cant say that we cant listen to it, that's called fascism buddy :laugh:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

One thing about 90s music (that I don't know if it still really applies) was the emphasis on street-cred. Oasis were boasting about being the real "lads", hip-hop artists all stumbled over eachother trying to show that they were actually former (or still) gangsters and that their street-tales were fact, and in punk it was the same sort of thing. I grew up about a 2 hour drive outside of the Bay Area, but the funny thing before Green Day came out was that lots of punks shit-talked Rancid as the sell-out band and then Green Day was suddenly all over the radio all the time. It's funny, because this obsession must have tired everyone out because everyone complained about ICE-Cube being "soft" and rancid being "too pop" but a few years later it was all like boy bands and teeny-bopper hip-hop.

It seems like that cred-obsession doesn't exist as much anymore except for that stereotype of hipsters who only like bands as far as it helps the hipster seem more obscure and knowledgeable than anyone else in the room. Am I just old - are people still obsessed with street-cred in music? Or did we all get worn-out by it in the 1990s - was it because street-cred meant that our damaged romantic rock-stars killed themselves and our street-tale rappers got shot?

Isn't the negativity around Rancid more that they were outed as homophobes by some people at their record label? Either way I think their music is pretty good and I think it's pretty poor form to criticise a musician as a sell-out - by definition it's their job to make a living out of music, idealist or not. I don't think idealism in the sense of 'small-record lable/traditional indie artists' really comes into it. Why would someone keep playing pubs if they could play mid-size venues, why would someone keep playing mid-size venues if they could play arenas, why would someone play arenas if they could legitimately play stadiums? Kinda like saying all footballers who turn pro are sell-outs. Silly argument.

I think loads of people are obsessed with street-cred in music - in that stereotype way. Just look at the NME - always pushing shitty indie bands purely because they're indie and obscure. Funny thing that indie now basically means 'were once small, gonna get big like the Arctic Monkeys', it's lost all its meaning in terms of actual independent-of-record-label music.

But then i'm just a punk rock reformist, so what do I know ;)

[Manic Impressive]

Nah I think selling out is pretty shitty but is often misinterpreted. For me selling out is compromising your own artistic style for a style that''s more commercially acceptable not necessarily getting softer which is what's usually meant.

For example Dr Dre

Sell out Dre (starts with NWA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CL6n0FJZpk

compared with Dre the artist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT9O-pUGsVM

In the second one he's doing his thing his own artistic creation first one he's acting it contains nothing of himself.

[Pirate Utopian]

Gangsta rap didnt even exist yet and electro was really big in the 80s.

[Hit The North]

The thing that stands out in the Beatles catalogue to me is their increasing focus on the album as the unit of artistic production rather than the single. Sergeant Peppers may not be a concept album as such, but it does seem to represent an attempt to create something that was more than simply a collection of potential singles, and of course there are tracks like 'A Day in the Life' which attempt to reach beyond the usual boundaries of form of the traditional three minute pop song. It's clear that bands like Yes and Genesis took quite a bit from listening to the Beatles in their 70's output, and of course there's also the Indian mysticism connection linking in to the concept of Tales from Topographic Oceans.

I think if we put all that on The Beatles then we're guilty of a selective reading of history. The Doors released their debut album with the eleven minute The End completely ripping up the rule book in January 1967, a good five months before Sgt Pepper was released in June 1967. Meanwhile, while The Beatles were recording Sgt Pepper in Abbey Road studios, a young band, the Pink Floyd, were next door recording their debut album of spooked psychedelia and space rock, released in August 1967. I think if you put Sgt Pepper next to the debut albums by The Doors and Pink Floyd then it looks pretty tame and not really the touch stone for all the interesting stuff about to burst asunder.

I think one of the great things about the Beatles was their ability to absorb all the changes in the 1960s and come out of it looking like they were the authors of the change. Sgt Pepper obviously was a big influence simply because The Beatles were so BIG. But really they were tapping into a transatlantic underground scene that had begun getting interesting in around 1965.

[Manic Impressive]

exactly he sold out rather than sticking to his own thing

[Hit The North]

Nah I think selling out is pretty shitty but is often misinterpreted. For me selling out is compromising your own artistic style for a style that''s more commercially acceptable not necessarily getting softer which is what's usually meant.

For example Dr Dre

Sell out Dre (starts with NWA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CL6n0FJZpk

compared with Dre the artist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT9O-pUGsVM

In the second one he's doing his thing his own artistic creation first one he's acting it contains nothing of himself.

So you must be one of those fundamentalists who think that Dylan sold out when he went electric?

The idea that Dre's first incarnation as a party-party electro artist is somehow more reflective of his 'own thang' than the gangsta persona he swapped it for, must mean that you think Dre lived in a disco rather than in Compton.

I mean, both are contrived personas and styles. But if you think that sticking to party rhymes rather than rhyming about police brutality is artistically more credible then I wonder about the poor state of your record collection.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Nah I think selling out is pretty shitty but is often misinterpreted. For me selling out is compromising your own artistic style for a style that''s more commercially acceptable not necessarily getting softer which is what's usually meant.

For example Dr Dre

Sell out Dre (starts with NWA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CL6n0FJZpk

compared with Dre the artist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT9O-pUGsVM

In the second one he's doing his thing his own artistic creation first one he's acting it contains nothing of himself.

that's true I think there's some truth to that aspect of it, but I think the selling out label is now aimed at a lot of artists who make decent money from selling out arenas/stadiums and from getting gold/platinum album sales, which isn't really fair.

Don't think Dre is the best example of selling out, either.

[TheAnswersYes]

Never liked the Beatles that much

*runs for cover*