All Time Top 1100 Albums (Aerosmith - Big Ones) P265

FogBlueInSanFran said:
I don't think that's right.

There are plenty of bands who perform different styles and some shouldn't. REM, e.g., shouldn't have done any country songs in their early days, because country songs are supposed to have words people can understand, and no one could understand Michael fucking Stipe for their first four albums. Joe Jackson shouldn't have ever done jazz or become a neo-lounge singer. I certainly wouldn't want to hear Jimmy Hendrix play the trumpet (actually maybe I would if he played the Star-Spangled Banner, and then set it on fire).

The Beatles were great. They also were so popular they could produce some ridiculously self-indulgent tripe and half-assed throwaway shit and people would buy it and say it was genius. As I noted, personally I think Paul McCartney's work is incredibly uneven, inside and outside The Beatles.

And what Beatles song on Sergeant Pepper's or later can you dance to (don't say Obla Di Obla Da)?

Or play air guitar to (other than Revolution)?

Both those things matter to me.

Anyhow, popular music fans shouldn't treat artists like infallible gods, nor assume they can't ever do wrong. History has adjudged the Beatles as critically important to music; that not everyone "likes" them today is okay. I don't really like the Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan, but I absolutely understand why they're so important, and why so many others do like them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agree they did a few duds, absolutely, and I don’t think I’m a million miles from your general pov on this.

I’d say Helter Skelter qualifies as an air guitar track extraordinarie btw.

In terms of like their music, with these older artists, for those of us who’ve lived with their music for so long it goes beyond ‘like’. I like their music but don’t actively listen to it anymore.
I’d say The Beatles were the best band ever, yet I’ll also admit I never listen to their music anymore. Those two things can co-exist in my mind.
 
chesterbells said:
Your point about time span I think is valid, because I’ve overlistened to them over the years too, where I virtually never play their music anymore. But that doesn’t stop me acknowledging the power of their music. However, if your post reaches a point where you’re comparing The Beatles to, er, Tommy Dorsey, then all hope is lost.
Anyway, good call re the Foos - think I’ll go and listen to some Learning To Fly ;-)
Click to expand...
I completely agree. It's important to have that historical context. I became a City fan during Keegan; I never saw Colin Bell play. But I'm going to respect what those who were there and who enjoyed and admired his performances say about his greatness even if I can't "see" it and didn't "experience" it. Sure it's different with music, because we hear the same songs -- but listening to Sergeant Pepper DURING the 60s AS the world was changing means/meant a lot more to people THEN than it does today if you weren't a part of it.
 
chesterbells said:
Yeah, agree they did a few duds, absolutely, and I don’t think I’m a million miles from your general pov on this.

I’d say Helter Skelter qualifies as an air guitar track extraordinarie btw.

In terms of like their music, with these older artists, for those of us who’ve lived with their music for so long it goes beyond ‘like’. I like their music but don’t actively listen to it anymore.
I’d say The Beatles were the best band ever, yet I’ll also admit I never listen to their music anymore. Those two things can co-exist in my mind.
Click to expand...
You are right about HS. And -- despite my misgivings about McCartney -- for whatever reason I have an incredible soft spot for Rocky Racoon, which is such an out of context tune. The White Album is just so remarkable; it's so "them" -- some of the very greatest stuff they ever did (Blackbird -- again, McCartney -- is heartbreaking -- one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard) -- mixed with some awful, awful stuff.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I don't think that's right.

There are plenty of bands who perform different styles and some shouldn't. REM, e.g., shouldn't have done any country songs in their early days, because country songs are supposed to have words people can understand, and no one could understand Michael fucking Stipe for their first four albums. Joe Jackson shouldn't have ever done jazz or become a neo-lounge singer. I certainly wouldn't want to hear Jimmy Hendrix play the trumpet (actually maybe I would if he played the Star-Spangled Banner, and then set it on fire).

The Beatles were great. They also were so popular they could produce some ridiculously self-indulgent tripe and half-assed throwaway shit and people would buy it and say it was genius. As I noted, personally I think Paul McCartney's work is incredibly uneven, inside and outside The Beatles.

And what Beatles song on Sergeant Pepper's or later can you dance to (don't say Obla Di Obla Da)?

Or play air guitar to (other than Revolution)?

Both those things matter to me.

Anyhow, popular music fans shouldn't treat artists like infallible gods, nor assume they can't ever do wrong. History has adjudged the Beatles as critically important to music; that not everyone "likes" them today is okay. I don't really like the Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan, but I absolutely understand why they're so important, and why so many others do like them.
Click to expand...

I didn’t mean styles in quite that regard, even your remark about McCartney who I also don’t particularly like kind of enforces my point. You said he was uneven which indicates he does stuff you like as well as others you don’t.

They have done the ballads, the pop, the guitar stuff, the experimental stuff etc they cover enough and do it well enough that pretty much everyone could appreciate something. Unless they are contrary or stuck in a singular music genre.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Personally I like the Beatles, I'm just bored with them. It's not their fault, and it's no comment on their quality or innovation or what they accomplished. They changed everything. They're arguably the most influential musical artist (for white people) in 100 years.

It's just the mathematics of time. They broke up when I was five. Ergo, I've had 50+ years to hear their stuff, and only 25 to hear, let's say, Foo Fighters.

Also -- again -- they broke up 50 fucking years ago. Music has changed, instruments have changed, technology has changed, style has changed. Telling someone under 40 that they "should" like the Beatles would be like my parents telling me I "should" like Tommy Dorsey, and the response should/would be the same: "Fuck off."
Click to expand...
I can listen to Beethoven or Mozart but I wasn’t born in the 1800s, my lad likes the Beatles kinks Simon and Garfunkel etc. Not because of his age(born 1990) just because it’s good music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.