Wow, I never thought I'd find another person who thought this. Every time I say that I don't like the beatles and think they are shit (much better bands out there, even in the same genre) I always get people wide-eyed staring at me like I couldn't possibly have that opinion. Disliking sports, I find, is fine by most people. And comic books aren't exactly seen in a bright light :PThe Beatles
I honestly think that most people that say things like "The Beatles are shit" just don't know much about popular music and it's history.
Yeah, I agree that both bands took music someplace new. But, my argument is not that this is why you should like the Beatles. I enjoy the songs and the music first and foremost, but then when you realize how they created that music given their limitations it becomes that much more impressive. Lets say you really love this painting: When you find out that it was made by a man with no hands it becomes even more impressive imo. First and foremost the art has to speak to you, but when you are a true fan of art you start to learn how it's made, what amps they use, what gauge of guitar strings etc. You start to hear "sounds" that are unique to them. A specific percussive sound etc. My guess is as a writer you are in tune with the writing process of some of your favorites. Right? That's context.
This is the sentiment I share with people when II point out that I can from listening to Jimi Hendrix to Rich Homie Quan or Tech N9ne. I look at the songs for the... Quality (I think you could say) of the lyrics... Nothing like Lil Wayne, even though they discuss the same things in their lyrics (mostly). Then I look at how catchy they are, or how worthy they are of keeping around (in my music collection). I enjoy the songs and the music first
I know what you're saying. That's a bit outside of the public consciousness though, in my opinion, as the guy on the street might not know about strings and amps, and all the small things that go into making a piece of music sound the way it does. I was just arguing that context is extremely important the other day, albeit from another angle. I just think that people experience things at different levels, often due to their exposure to something. I wasn't saying that your argument was based solely on the coincidence of time and the Beatles, just that I see a parallel between both bands along one particular line that I think is a good place to start from.
Context with music is an interesting thing. I will often be turned on to a band that is new to me, but has been making music for a long time. I'll ask a friend that likes them to recommend a starting point on which album to listen to first. There are several different answers: 1. Start at the beginning, this gives you context to appreciate the artists journey and full body of work. 2. Start at with an album that shows them maturing, a turning point album. -Many would pick Rubber Soul for the Beatles. 3. Or... pick the best album they've made in your opinion. Which do you recommend? How important is context to the appreciation of the band in question? Interesting stuff and the answer varies based on the band and the friend asking.
I was thinking about this earlier, too. Used to be I'd trawl the web for album recommendations (honestly, I'd trawl 4chan's /mu/. The recommendations there were mostly always interesting at least and often good) and start with that one album. For a while (and to some extent, still now) I'd grab a discography and start with the very first album. But that has potential issues, too, I think - I haven't moved past Astronautalis' first album, because I love it so much, but the first track I heard from him - the one that made me go get his stuff - was on his latest. I think the hesitance is partly because I don't enjoy his 2nd too much, but I'm reluctant to move on so quickly. What I'm doing more often now, though, especially when I'm looking for stuff for one of the radio shows, is just grab whatever's free (usually from bandcamp). That stuff, depending on the band, can be singles, EPs, really old stuff, stuff the band doesn't really like or think is their best - or maybe it is their best and they're using it to draw in the crowd - or absolutely everything. I can't decide which approach to new-to-me artists I prefer, and I'm determined to eventually settle on a particular approach - even though it'll take ages and a few months after that I'm likely to change my mind.
Oh, that's a tough question. And a good one. I was actually thinking about that tonight while listening to Portugal. The Man. I got their albums all at once and listened to them chronologically, but I got bored and just kind of bore it until I got to the latest album, which got me interested in them in the first place. Then, tonight I started listening backward through the discography and it made a lot more sense to me and was a lot more interesting. Conversely, with Weezer, I liked them until Pinkerton and then decided I'd had enough. I have the other albums, but rarely listen to them. Every once in a while I'll listen through and discover that I like a particular song, or section of an album. Maybe someday I'll like or at least appreciate them all. I guess this is why I so often ask where to start when getting recommendations on hubski. That way I can do it the way I want and then try it the other way too.
The history of something doesn't change it's quality.
Context does. But since writing this comment I've read on in this thread and saw that you think all pop sucks, including the Beatles but that Gangnam Style was okay at first... and you have hipster blood. Chances are this conversation isn't going anywhere.
"hipster blood" was just kind of a joke. It's popularity is not why I hate it. I can't possibly see how context effects the actual song itself. But for the purpose of discussion, you'd say that the beatles did suck if it were made by some random unknown kid? See, to me, that defeats the whole point of music. or art. or anything really. I enjoyed Gangnam style on my first listen because it was an enjoyable beat. The same way I'd enjoy something by, say, pitbull on my first listen. However, after I've heard it once, the overall "catch" and reason to listen to the song is over. and I get no more enjoyment from it. The beatles I don't like for an entirely different reason. I don't like the beatles because it's hardly music. I heard how "great" they are, and my folks love them, so I gave it a shot. Put on my headphones and had a thorough listen. Gave them a chance. Song after song I couldn't see what was so great. It didn't wow me. It didn't even sound that amazing. I'm not a big fan of classical music, but that shit is impressive. Mozart, Beethoven, etc. All great stuff (though I wouldn't listen due to various reasons). Beatles didn't evoke that same interest. To me, it just sounded like some random teenagers who picked up some instruments and decided to make "a band". Sounds like any other random teenager band. I don't give a shit what they caused, or why they made the music. It sounds like shit. That's like enjoying citizen kane because it revolutionized film. I recognize that the beatles were a big part of history, no denying that. But to say they are a good band because of it? No. Citizen Kane was a bad film. Just like the beatles are a bad band. I'd rather go deaf than have to listen to them. So no. The history and context do not change the quality of the music. Nor does it change it's entertainment value. It merely changes it's importance, which an entirely different point.
What I'm saying is that knowing the history of a medium shows the constraints the artists had. The Beatles music would (and does) still stand up today along side contemporary pop-rock and they did it with less technology than you have on your laptop right now. If you are actually a fan of music as an art form, you appreciate these things. Also, context informs lyrics. If you know the history of when a band recorded, what was happening etc, you can get a better understanding about what they're singing about. But you aren't a fan of lyrics, this much is evident so I'm not sure it's worth even having this conversation. I'm curious what music, aside from Beethoven/Mozart etc that you do think is "good".you'd say that the beatles did suck if it were made by some random unknown kid?
-Nope, I wouldn't. I think they're music is unparalleled in the history of popular music/songwriting. If an unknown kid recorded this song or this one or this one, I'd still love them all.To me, it just sounded like some random teenagers who picked up some instruments and decided to make "a band". Sounds like any other random teenager band.
-I don't think you know much about music. Not trying to be a dick, but even people that don't like the Beatles music have enough sense to recognize that much of it was more complex than a bunch of random teenagers making music.The history and context do not change the quality of the music
-history changes your perception of what the song is about. It puts you in a place and time. Music can be transcendent.I'd rather go deaf than have to listen to them.
-Now I'm wondering if I'm talking with a 12 year old?
But you see, I can appreciate what they did with the technology available. Just like I can appreciate Citizen Kane for revolutionizing movies. Or just like I can appreciate pong for revolutionizing video games. Doesn't mean any of them are remotely good. At the time, maybe. But these things have not stood the test of time and there are much better things available now. Honestly, I really tried to like them. That's all it honestly sounds like to me. And really, I'm guessing that's why those are some of the first songs people learn with learning guitar or another instrument. I think this is a good point to bring up. As there are songs I "like" because I like the lyrics (but I think the song is terrible) and there are songs that I "like" because I like the music behind the lyrics (but don't necessarily like the lyrics). I haven't listened to the beatles enough to know if they fall in the "I like the lyrics" category or not, but honestly, I can't stand the noise of their "music". Not much. I find that ~90% of the stuff I come across isn't worth listening to. I've listened to stuff in nearly every music genre. As with Beethoven/Mozart, I find other classical music and symphonies to be pretty impressive. Not "listen daily" material, but I can recognize that it's pretty damn impressive and don't mind it if it's on. As for what I think is "good", that'd really be just what is "interesting". If it can hold my attention, then it's a good song. For some popular stuff: I like a lot of Maroon 5's stuff. Eminem seems to do some good work, but I don't like the music behind his raps. He needs an actual artist to work with. But really, I like to listen to stuff like this. Lots of fusion genres. Lots of electro-swing stuff is really good too. Caravan Palace, Parov Stelar. I prefer fast-pace/tempo music, but that's just a preference. I can enjoy slower stuff too if it's good. By contrast, the beatles are just bland. I appreciate what they did for music (as tons of artists did as well), but in terms of stuff I can listen to right now they kind of suck. Nope. 20. I'm surprised that you think that someone who doesn't follow the crowd's opinion is "a 12 year old". It's not like I'm pulling this shit from my ass. I can cut a clear line between music that I genuinely think is good and bad. Also, age doesn't matter. And I tend to find ignorant or stubborn people are the only ones who tend to use age as an argument. I've seen plenty of 12 year olds that are a lot better of a person than any 20-60 year olds. Fact of the matter is, I really wouldn't mind going deaf in general. It's an inconvenience, but it'd be nice not to have to listen to shit all day.If you are actually a fan of music as an art form, you appreciate these things. Also, context informs lyrics. If you know the history of when a band recorded, what was happening etc, you can get a better understanding about what they're singing about. But you aren't a fan of lyrics, this much is evident so I'm not sure it's worth even having this conversation.
-I don't think you know much about music. Not trying to be a dick, but even people that don't like the Beatles music have enough sense to recognize that much of it was more complex than a bunch of random teenagers making music.
But you aren't a fan of lyrics, this much is evident so I'm not sure it's worth even having this conversation.
I'm curious what music, aside from Beethoven/Mozart etc that you do think is "good".
-Now I'm wondering if I'm talking with a 12 year old?
"Fact of the matter is, I really wouldn't mind going deaf in general. It's an inconvenience, but it'd be nice not to have to listen to shit all day." Respectfully: I think your concluding sentence is perfect, but not in the way you intend. If you're not that into music, then why put forth such definitive arguments on the matter? I don't know much about engineering, and although I understand that it's important, the ins and outs of it don't altogether interest me- I'd never deign to argue about the most influential gear design. Or something. I really know nothing of engineering, are there more or less influential gear designs? That said, all opinions ought to be welcome here, not just the ones we want to agree with. As long as they're put forth civilly. Everybody.
I was merely explaining my statement (as asked). Why did I comment? Because I agreed and felt like added into the thread. I usually don't go this in depth talking about my music tastes. I understand mine are completely different than most people's, so I just go and do my own thing. I like music, I just don't care to go to extremes. I just want to find something enjoyable to listen to. That's all :). I never argued about "the most influential". If said bands are influential, then so be it. I'm merely stating taste. I don't know if you ever mistook my statements as facts, but they are opinions. Hence the topic/question posted. ;)If you're not that into music, then why put forth such definitive arguments on the matter?
I'd never deign to argue about the most influential gear design.
That said, all opinions ought to be welcome here, not just the ones we want to agree with. As long as they're put forth civilly. Everybody.
I think the distinction between appreciation and enjoyment is a really interesting one. To me, they're extremely similar. If I can appreciate how something was done, I'm going to enjoy it so much more. And the context plays a huge part in that, in informing my appreciation. Take film, for example. There are lots of films I didn't particularly enjoy the first time around - take Werner Herzog's Aguirre, for example. Really didn't enjoy that, but after studying it and rewatching it for the contextual and filmic elements I really did enjoy it, because I could appreciate it and understand it more. I can see how this isn't going to be true for everyone, though.
I think it really depends. The two are indeed separate for me. Sometimes they line up, and sometimes they don't. In some cases, knowing "the secret" behind it kind of ruins it. Movies and Video games are especially vulnerable to this (considering I know a bit about how they are made). Music is a bit different, as I don't know quite all the details about how it's made. So it's mostly a naive view, followed by learning about the music later on. A good example (for me) is Eminem. I don't really like his stuff. At all. There's maybe a song or two that I enjoy. But after reading up on the guy and listening to some interviews, I can kind of "see" him behind his work. So I appreciate it a bit more. Doesn't mean I like the music though. It still "sounds" the same, but I have a greater appreciation for it. In other cases, I find that learning about the history/context adds to my enjoyment. That's rare though :P.
For me, knowing "the secret", as you put it, almost always improves the thing for me. I love that, personally, because it means the more I get to know it or the person who created it the more I can enjoy it. Hip hop is a good example for me, too, actually. I never really enjoyed it until I started getting into different parts of the genre - Home Brew specifically. At first, I just enjoyed their lyrics and political content (*very* local) but then, the more I listened not just to them but to similar stuff the more I could appreciate the production and how it all works. It changes the way it "sounds" to me, too, because now I can tell when a track has been produced really well - or, even better, really interestingly - and I can enjoy it a lot more. Like I said, it's really interesting how this is different for you. Context and perspective is fascinating.
It took a long time for me to like it but only because it was always on as a kid. When I read the below story it made me imagine hearing it for the first time again. It's a really great tune.On July 26, 1968, Mick Jagger flew from Los Angeles to London for a birthday party thrown in his honor at a hip new Moroccan-style bar called the Vesuvio Club—“one of the best clubs London has ever seen,” remembered proprietor Tony Sanchez. Under black lights and beautiful tapestries, some of London’s trendiest models, artists, and pop singers lounged on huge cushions and took pulls from Turkish hookahs, while a decorative, helium-filled dirigible floated aimlessly about the room. As a special treat, Mick brought along an advance pressing of the Stones’ forthcoming album, Beggars Banquet, to play over the club’s speakers. Just as the crowd was “leaping around” and celebrating the record—which would soon win accolades as the best Stones album to date—Paul McCartney strolled in, and passed Sanchez a copy of the forthcoming Beatles single “Hey Jude/Revolution,” which had never before been heard by anyone outside of Abbey Road Studios. Sanchez recalled how the “slow, thundering buildup of ‘Hey Jude’ shook the club”; the crowd demanded that the seven-minute song be played again and again. Finally, the club’s disc jockey played the flip side, and everyone heard “John Lennon’s nasal voice pumping out ‘Revolution.’” “When it was over,” Sanchez said, “Mick looked peeved. The Beatles had upstaged him.”
I've heard that story. Poor guy. I just watched this french documentary about Yves Saint Laurent. It was somewhat boring, but there was some cool archival footage of him at home. There's a clip of Yves walking around his living room with Andy Warhol and they're chatting. You can hear a piano in the background, which isn't being played all that well. And suddenly you notice from just a quick move of the camera, that it's Mick Jagger playing it. But the camera doesn't pay any mind. Like it's just another day at Yves or something.
Yeah, makes Paul seem like a total dick. Of those two songs he brought I definitely think Revolution is the better. Mick's the man. Best front man/singer in rock history imo.
Good call, that's a tough one because they both have strengths the other doesn't have. I love Queen, I need to get back in to their music again. FYI, the links you gave me are both the same. Great performance though, thanks.
Fixed that link, thanks. I was 7 when this happened. It still lives somewhere deep inside of me. This and Ohio.
Well, that's like your opinion, man. Of course, I would disagree with the Beatles not standing up with Radiohead etc and I think those bands would too. But no matter what you have to like the art or it will not matter when it was made and how significant it was then. -I would never suggest that anyone like the Beatles just because they were influential. Never.
I've always taken the contextual side of that dichotomy, so I disagree. Regardless, you might give this a quick read -- the Beatles helped make it mainstream. Their sound engineers, who were unsung heroes, used four tracks to the best of their ability. Now anyone can use 64 with a little cheap tech. Just an aside.The history of something doesn't change it's quality.
I had a four-track tascam recorder as a kid. I became pretty good at what the wikipedia post calls "reduction mixing" or bouncing down to one track. It was an art-form. Back then (for me), the more you bounced down on tape the lesser the quality became though. kleinbl00, you remember those days? The limitations we had were really part of the process and made things fun.
As I said, I have no problem appreciating what they did for music. I understand it was a huge contribution. But just because they were a great contributor to the technique, ideas, hardware, w/e, doesn't mean their music was any good. Technically impressive for the time, yes, but the music itself may or may not be good. Another way of putting it would be the Motorola Razr phone (the old flip-phone one). It completely revolutionized phones, and at the time it was amazing (to the point where everyone copied it). By today's standards, the phone is a piece of shit. But what it did for phones was amazing and people can appreciate that while recognizing that it's not all that great of a phone. So knowing the history might make you appreciate it more, it doesn't make it better.
Well, I don't think you can use technology (though you're right about the Razr) as a corollary for music, because tech has function whereas music has form. Art doesn't need to progress to meet the needs of society to nearly as great an extent as technology, although it at times does. I can't escape the feeling that songs like A Change is Gonna Come or Vietnam Song wouldn't have remotely the same effect if they'd come out in 1995. You might argue that effect doesn't influence appreciation but I would argue that they're almost the same thing. To each his own.