Are the BEATLES vicariously responsible for the mediocrity of mainstream pop music?

[xilddx]

[quote name='Stan_da_man' timestamp='1370621347' post='2103623']
Plus the one.

Are these threads created to just start pointless arguments on the forum between members? Seems like it to me.
[/quote]
Did you read my OP mate? Or are you intent on causing trouble? If you read my OP you would realise it was not to cause arguments but to explore a train of thought.

[Skol303]

"Vicariously"... nice word

In a nutshell my answer to this question would be no.

The longer answer is I think the Beatles have undisputedly had a huge impact on pop music - both in terms of inspiring artists (an obvious example being Oasis) and providing a blueprint for A&R folk and record labels to base their decisions on. But they're not the only band to have such influence, so I don't think the blame of modern mediocrity can lie solely with them.

Also, I don't personally find modern music to be mediocre. Well, no more mediocre than it's been at any other time during my 40 years thus far. I think what's considered to be pop music has diversified hugely since the hey day of the Beatles. If anything, the mediocrity of today's chart is due to major labels being constantly one step behind the zeitgeist and always playing catch up: desperately releasing sanitised pastiches of whatever trend they've been told is 'Trending', by which time the cool kids have already moved on to whatever's next. Justin Bieber released a dubstep-infused track recently, which says it all really. And it was desperately mediocre.

Anyway, I'm blathering... but no, it's not just the Beatles. If anything, I'd say their influence on modern pop music is fading rapidly with each new generation. And especially as it's no longer all about white kids with guitars.

Still, an interesting question Nige. It got my noggin working on a Friday afternoon, which is no mean feat

[LukeFRC]

this whole thing is utterly confused on the idea of what pop is. All the time, every decade you'll have good and interesting stuff being made.

And you'll also have the popular mainstream stuff made to make money for the industry. Most bands will have nods to both and every so often you'll get something that either mixes to two to be great music and pop.

Radiohead would be a modern example of that maybe - very successful, sell a lot - but still can go and record OK computer and then random should have been unsucessful stuff like Kid A.

Every so often maybe you'll get a band who are pop and good and manage to hit a resonant frequency on society and culture... like the beatles did.

To pull examples of good stuff from pre beatles and then someone say "oh but that's not pop" misses point or two I think.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1370622770' post='2103646']
Did you read my OP mate? Or are you intent on causing trouble? If you read my OP you would realise it was not to cause arguments but to explore a train of thought.
[/quote]

One man's debate is another man's argument is another man's trolling.

[Dave Vader]

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1370623196' post='2103655']
Also, I don't personally find modern music to be mediocre. Well, no more mediocre than it's been at any other time during my 40 years thus far. I think what's considered to be pop music has diversified hugely since the hey day of the Beatles. If anything, the mediocrity of today's chart is due to major labels being constantly one step behind the zeitgeist and always playing catch up: desperately releasing sanitised pastiches of whatever trend they've been told is 'Trending', by which time the cool kids have already moved on to whatever's next. Justin Bieber released a dubstep-infused track recently, which says it all really. And it was desperately mediocre.
[/quote]

I remember the famous drum and bass lite that was baby d and let me be your fantasy. I think that was the first time I noticed this phenomena. As I was too young to know if D-Mob were actually acid house or not, and I didn't get Guy called Gerald til a year or 2 after it came out.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1370619304' post='2103602']
The phenomenon of the Beatles is very interesting, their influence should be discussed, but it's largely a waste of f***ing time innit.
[/quote]

Trouble is, the Beatles have been the subject of discussion and erudite analysis for so long that almost everything has been said that can be said. Their musical structures, their influence on fashion, fashion's influences on them, what they did on the afternoon of January 4th 1967, what Lennon said to Ringo about George Martin's milkman.

Pretty much all been done, to the point where you could probably write a book entitled 'What Would Life Be Like If The Beatles Had Never Happened?' with photoshopped pix of Russian troops in East Berlin in 2010 because, without the Beatles, Glasnost never happened.

So how do we get out of the ruts carved by generations of fans and critics? Specialist topics like yours could help, but the ever-present danger is the slump back into 'Weren't the Beatles great / sh*t?'

Even if we try and we want to succeed with the greatest of clarity, we'd have to frame the question really tightly, with definitions, limits, citations etc. Some family tree software with embedded sound files would be good, too.

Perhaps the best thing to do is wait for the last Beatle to drop off the twig, give it another 25 years and see what people have to say then.

Because some of the (contemporaneously) biggest names in popular art of the last 100 years are hardly spoken of today. Gilbert Patten (1866-1945) sold an estimated 500m kids books - 50m more than JK Rowling. Who's heard of him?

Edited June 7, 2013 by skankdelvar

[Dad3353]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1370644229' post='2104037']...Who's heard of him?[/quote]

Hardly fair, old bean; he was an American. One doesn't admit to knowing much/anything about ..erm... [i]them[/i].

Now Toby Twirl... There's a lost influence for you. All those evenings and nights with a torch under the blankets, defeating the curfew so as to finish the chapter. Shaped a whole generation, I wouldn't wonder. Maybe that's why I need spectacles, now..? Who knows...

[Lowender]

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1370618949' post='2103593']
Somewhat perhaps But Liam's just a thick c*nt with an attitude, Lennon was a highly intelligent and articulate person who took delight in belittling people for pleasure. I understand he apologised occasionally but I can't abide that sort of emotional cruelty. It's so f***ing hard for me to like his music because of that, but nevertheless, I adore She Said She Said.
[/quote]

I won't defend Lennon because he could be a real jerk at times. But realize, he was the original "punk" and had the world adoring him until his "retirement" at the age of 30. They say Beethoven wasn't a nice man either. That doesn't diminish his contribution.

And glad to hear you're coming around to appreciating the boys. There's plenty more.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Lowender

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1370645187' post='2104044']
They say Beethoven wasn't a nice man either. That doesn't diminish his contribution.
[/quote]

Indeed. You don't have to like someone in order to like/dislike/appreciate their creativity. More to the point, who really 'knows' all these artists/celebs anyway?

[BetaFunk]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1370645187' post='2104044']
I won't defend Lennon because he could be a real jerk at times. But realize, he was the original "punk" and had the world adoring him until his "retirement" at the age of 30.
[/quote]
Lennon was the original punk?

Well how about that!

They say you live and learn.

[Lowender]

[quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1370645815' post='2104051']
Lennon was the original punk?

Well how about that!

They say you live and learn.
[/quote]

In a way, yes. Rock and Roll was young and there weren't any "anti establishment types' that were making hit records. If you know of someone else, please share.

[Guest bassman7755]

[quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1370554490' post='2102789']
I agree with others that the Fab Four were excellent at what they did. They knocked out memorable pop songs and were unique at the time being liked by kids and teens as well as mums and dads. No other group had such a wide audience.
[/quote]

I dunno, I think queen possible came close to the same sort of universal appeal, the only band to ever do so IMO.

[Lowender]

And BTW, although their early stuff may be on the trite side (but fun as hell) check out the bass on All My Lovin'. It's very busy, yet all in first position with open strings. There's hardly any hand movement. It's brilliant.

He was only 20 years old.

Now play it and sing it at the same time.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Lowender

[BetaFunk]

[quote name='bassman7755' timestamp='1370645947' post='2104053']
I dunno, I think queen possible came close to the same sort of universal appeal, the only band to ever do so IMO.
[/quote]
Not in the same way and not so many Grannies liked Queen.

[BetaFunk]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1370645907' post='2104052']
In a way, yes. Rock and Roll was young and there weren't any "anti establishment types' that were making hit records. If you know of someone else, please share.
[/quote]
I realise that he wasn't anywhere near as popular but have a look at my earlier post of Vince Taylor. He makes Lennon look like an altar boy.


Here's Vince..........!!!

http://youtu.be/W2j7sLUDkDM

Edited June 7, 2013 by BetaFunk

[Wylie]

[quote name='White Cloud' timestamp='1370550763' post='2102685']
Eh, no.
[/quote]

Me, too.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1370645187' post='2104044']
I won't defend Lennon because he could be a real jerk at times. [color=#ff0000][b]But realize, he was the original "punk"[/b][/color] and had the world adoring him until his "retirement" at the age of 30. They say Beethoven wasn't a nice man either. That doesn't diminish his contribution.

And glad to hear you're coming around to appreciating the boys. There's plenty more.
[/quote]

OK, lady xilddx was a punk in the days when it kicked off in London in the '70s. I just asked her opinion on your statement - she said Lennon thought he was an intellectual and took himself far too seriously to be a punk. That punks were quite the opposite and revelled in shallowness and never took themselves seriously. Out of the Beatles she reckons Ringo was the punk in the Beatles, and that Lydon was too cynical to be a punk, and that Sid was the real punk in the Pistols.

[BetaFunk]

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1370650792' post='2104097']
OK, lady xilddx was a punk in the days when it kicked off in London in the '70s. I just asked her opinion on your statement - she said Lennon thought he was an intellectual and took himself far too seriously to be a punk. That punks were quite the opposite and revelled in shallowness and never took themselves seriously. Out of the Beatles she reckons Ringo was the punk in the Beatles, and that Lydon was too cynical to be a punk, and that Sid was the real punk in the Pistols.
[/quote]
I think that we're going to have to have a new thread to define what a Punk is. Is it the circa 1900 version or the between the World Wars version or maybe the post war Punk before we even get to the 1970s version.
One thing is for sure though. Lennon was not one.

[xilddx]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1370644229' post='2104037']
Trouble is, the Beatles have been the subject of discussion and erudite analysis for so long that almost everything has been said that can be said. Their musical structures, their influence on fashion, fashion's influences on them, what they did on the afternoon of January 4th 1967, what Lennon said to Ringo about George Martin's milkman.

Pretty much all been done, to the point where you could probably write a book entitled 'What Would Life Be Like If The Beatles Had Never Happened?' with photoshopped pix of Russian troops in East Berlin in 2010 because, without the Beatles, Glasnost never happened.

So how do we get out of the ruts carved by generations of fans and critics? Specialist topics like yours could help, but the ever-present danger is the slump back into 'Weren't the Beatles great / sh*t?'

Even if we try and we want to succeed with the greatest of clarity, we'd have to frame the question really tightly, with definitions, limits, citations etc. Some family tree software with embedded sound files would be good, too.

Perhaps the best thing to do is wait for the last Beatle to drop off the twig, give it another 25 years and see what people have to say then.

Because some of the (contemporaneously) biggest names in popular art of the last 100 years are hardly spoken of today. Gilbert Patten (1866-1945) sold an estimated 500m kids books - 50m more than JK Rowling. Who's heard of him?
[/quote]

Yeah I know I just had the temerity to think I had a new angle

[Lowender]

Eh, semantics. Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees. I really don't care about anyone's definition of "punk." My point was...he was a rebellious type, kept in line by Mac who was more of a people pleaser. When you have that attitude and the world looks to you as a spokesman and you;re 24 years old, it's a reality none of us can comprehend.

At any rate -- try singing and playing All My Lovin. Or "You Won't See Me." Or "Just Another Day." Mac did it like it was second nature.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1370655040' post='2104132']
Eh, semantics. Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees. I really don't care about anyone's definition of "punk." My point was...he was a rebellious type, kept in line by Mac who was more of a people pleaser. When you have that attitude and the world looks to you as a spokesman and you;re 24 years old, it's a reality none of us can comprehend.

At any rate -- try singing and playing All My Lovin. Or "You Won't See Me." Or "Just Another Day." Mac did it like it was second nature.
[/quote]

Do you love Rickenbackers by any chance?

[Lowender]

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1370655388' post='2104133']
Do you love Rickenbackers by any chance?
[/quote]

??? I'm sure that a reference to ....something. I have 9 basses -- one of them is a Rick. It's not the most versatile instrument but it's like nothing else. But that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?

[louisthebass]

I used to be of the opinion that The Beatles were overrated, but once I heard the double CD compilation album of all the material between 1967 & 1970, my thought process changed completely. What a lot of people forget, is that The Beatles were (IMO) revolutionary [b]for their era[/b], and wrote and recorded some great songs.

The Beatles were not a "manufactured" band like The Monkees and The Archies (to name a couple) - they were four lads who earned their stripes scuffling around the circuit for a few years (like a lot of great bands between the 1960's and 1990's) before they hit the big time. I don't think the likes of The Wanted or One Direction have had to do that have they?

You have to remember that a lot of modern pop music is aimed at the 13 - 25 year old bracket (for the most part) as the record companies identify that age range as having a lot of "disposable income" (even in a recession). It's instantly forgettable cack that will not stand the test of time compared to anything written by Lennon and McCartney.

[BetaFunk]

[quote name='louisthebass' timestamp='1370687611' post='2104350']
I used to be of the opinion that The Beatles were overrated, but once I heard the double CD compilation album of all the material between 1967 & 1970, my thought process changed completely. What a lot of people forget, is that The Beatles were (IMO) revolutionary [b]for their era[/b], and wrote and recorded some great songs.

The Beatles were not a "manufactured" band like The Monkees and The Archies (to name a couple) - they were four lads who earned their stripes scuffling around the circuit for a few years (like a lot of great bands between the 1960's and 1990's) before they hit the big time. I don't think the likes of The Wanted or One Direction have had to do that have they?
[/quote]
The Archies? Manufactured?

Another dream shattered.

[xilddx]

[quote name='louisthebass' timestamp='1370687611' post='2104350']
I used to be of the opinion that The Beatles were overrated, but once I heard the double CD compilation album of all the material between 1967 & 1970, my thought process changed completely. What a lot of people forget, is that The Beatles were (IMO) revolutionary [b]for their era[/b], and wrote and recorded some great songs.

The Beatles were not a "manufactured" band like The Monkees and The Archies (to name a couple) - they were four lads who earned their stripes scuffling around the circuit for a few years (like a lot of great bands between the 1960's and 1990's) before they hit the big time. I don't think the likes of The Wanted or One Direction have had to do that have they?

You have to remember that a lot of modern pop music is aimed at the 13 - 25 year old bracket (for the most part) as the record companies identify that age range as having a lot of "disposable income" (even in a recession). It's instantly forgettable cack that will not stand the test of time compared to anything written by Lennon and McCartney.
[/quote]

Love your avatar Now go and fetch yer f***in shine box!