The Beatles Curse

[CamdenRob]

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1441292198' post='2857648']
Who was bigger? The beatles or Michael Jackson


*runs and hides
[/quote]

I dunno who was bigger but Michael Jackson was better.

[the boy]

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1441273415' post='2857372']


Well thank you very much, because I believe that my previous post is not just an 'are not' but raises reasonable points which can be debated.
[/quote]
Yes you are right..... I wasn't referring to you. Everything you said is of great relevance as is most of the sentiment being expressed and shared. However the singular counter argument is becoming a bit samey. So no matter what anybody puts forward the retort is the same or some variant of.
Its Like playing tennis with one one those machines. Now the machine is programmed to deliver the ball to the centre of the box at 67mph and will continue to do so until it runs out of balls. No matter what shot you return to the machine it will still only deliver the next ball to the same spot at the same speed because that's all it knows. Your lob or volley or straight down the centre is irrelevant to the outcome of the machines next delivery. Occasionally the wind might pick up and shift the machines ball slightly to the left or the right and you may think "ooh you crafty bugger, are you trying to put one over on me" but it is not because it cannot. Eventually the machine will run out of balls and the game will be over. Some people will remain and continue to return some of the balls that got past you and others will pick up the balls and go home. Eventually the machine will be reloaded and its shot adjusted but that will be a whole other game. lol.........

(This drinking in the afternoon lark really must stop. )

[Beer of the Bass]

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1441292473' post='2857657']
I do realise that your joking, but I'll say:

The important bit is not who was 'bigger', but who was more innovative and influential. Which was the more important album, Fleetwood Mac's 'Rumours' or the lesser selling 'Sgt Pepper's'?
[/quote]

That's an interesting point to bring up, as looking at some of the bigger names in contemporary pop, I think I can see a fair chunk of Michael Jackson influence, not just in the music but in the whole way of working. I mean that thing of having big productions by name producers, slick videos, performances as much focussed on dance and spectacle as the song etc. I'm not a huge MJ fan myself (so no epiphanies for me there), but there is probably a case to be made for him having changed the industry in a fairly significant way.
Of course, none of this has happened in a vacuum so anything which was important in the path of 20th century pop will have paved the way for it in some way.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1441286540' post='2857559']The important bit is not who was 'bigger', but who was more innovative and influential. Which was the more important album, Fleetwood Mac's 'Rumours' or the lesser selling 'Sgt Pepper's'?[/quote]

For me - it's "Rumours", entirely because in music's primary role of enjoyable entertainment I do enjoy "Rumours", though I'm not a fan of FM, whereas Sgt Pepper bores me to the point that though I own a few Beatles recordings I've never listened to Sgt Pepper all the way through.

That may be heresy to some ............. or maybe I just don't "[i]get it[/i]".

[Annoying Twit]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1441294883' post='2857700']
For me - it's "Rumours", entirely because in music's primary role of enjoyable entertainment I do enjoy "Rumours", though I'm not a fan of FM, whereas Sgt Pepper bores me to the point that though I own a few Beatles recordings I've never listened to Sgt Pepper all the way through.

That may be heresy to some ............. or maybe I just don't "[i]get it[/i]".
[/quote]

Hmmm... I think something can be enjoyable but not as important as something else. A fair sized proportion of today's serious music is not enjoyable. But in the long run it may be more important. An album being enjoyable is down to the subjective experience of the listener. Whether an album is important may be more to do with what the album motivates it's listeners (note plural) to do.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Annoying Twit

[skankdelvar]

The injured pride and rampant insecurity peppered around this thread are - in their way - quite deliciously indicative of the internet's power to reduce otherwise uninvolved and uncommitted individuals to the silliest of observations in the cause of bolstering their opinions; none of which - pro or con the original assertion - have any real value beyond that of dark pixels on a light background.

The original contention is very simple:

(i) The Beatles had the biggest, widest impact and influence on their audience and on their peers than any other pop group before or since. That much is probably true.

(ii) Those who were not present at the time will find it difficult or impossible to accurately estimate the nature of events as they transpired

(iii) To have contemporaneously attended upon the Beatles phenomenon will have granted the observer / participant a specific insight into [i]that particular phenomenon[/i] which will be denied to others who were 'not there'. Seems reasonable.

(iv) Other epiphanies are equally valid on a personal basis but when viewed in a historical context may reasonably be considered to have been a less formative influence on the wider development of the popular music form in the 20th century

I mean, none of this is particularly difficult to understand nor does it in anyway devalue the very, [i]very[/i] special personal value of individuals who dissent from the view, despite the misapprehensions, misconstructions and [i]maledicta[/i] that flit around the thread like bats at twilight .

Frankly - and as I mentioned before - it seems like some of us are rather upset that Blue holds his opinion and is - moreover - laudably resistant to all efforts to make him cave in. The fact that some are resorting to ad-hominems kinda means they've lost the argument; but kudos to the constructive debaters. Nice work, Gents.

[color=#ffffff].[/color]

Edited September 3, 2015 by skankdelvar

[lurksalot]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1441296040' post='2857710']
The injured pride and rampant insecurity peppered around this thread are - in their way - quite deliciously indicative of the internet's power to reduce otherwise uninvolved and uncommitted individuals to the silliest of observations in the cause of bolstering their opinions; none of which - pro or con the original assertion - have any real value beyond that of dark pixels on a light background.

The original contention is very simple:

(i) The Beatles had the biggest, widest impact and influence on their audience and on their peers than any other pop group before or since. That much is probably true.

(ii) Those who were not present at the time will find it difficult or impossible to accurately estimate the nature of events as they transpired

(iii) To have contemporaneously attended upon the Beatles phenomenon will have granted the observer / participant a specific insight into [i]that particular phenomenon[/i] which will be denied to others who were 'not there'. Seems reasonable.

(iv) Other epiphanies are equally valid on a personal basis but when viewed in a historical context may reasonably be considered to have been a less formative influence on the wider development of the popular music form in the 20th century

I mean, none of this is particularly difficult to understand nor does it in anyway devalue the very, [i]very[/i] special personal value of individuals who dissent from the view, despite the misapprehensions, misconstructions and [i]maledicta[/i] that flit around the thread like bats at twilight .

Frankly - and as I mentioned before - it seems like some of us are rather upset that Blue holds his opinion and is - moreover - laudably resistant to all efforts to make him cave in. The fact that some are resorting to ad-hominems kinda means they've lost the argument; but kudos to the constructive debaters. Nice work, Gents.

[color=#ffffff].[/color]
[/quote]

Forgive me a little chuckle as the first actual line of the thread .......


[quote name='blue' timestamp='1438198454' post='2832518']
[font=Arial]I have notices over the past year that generational issues come up and make for a lot of confusing discussion and misunderstandings.[/font]



[/quote]

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1441296003' post='2857709']
Hmmm... I think something can be enjoyable but not as important as something else. A fair sized proportion of today's serious music is not enjoyable. But in the long run it may be more important. An album being enjoyable is down to the subjective experience of the listener. Whether an album is important may be more to do with what the album motivates it's listeners (note plural) to do.
[/quote]

That's a whole lotta important-ing going on! Maybe the importance isn't important to some compared to the actual enjoyment purpose, or simply lost over the decades since.

[blue]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1441307896' post='2857848']
That's a whole lotta important-ing going on! Maybe the importance isn't important to some compared to the actual enjoyment purpose, or simply lost over the decades since.
[/quote]

Stu, nothing has been lost, it's all documented. You can't lose history.

Blue

[blue]

[quote name='Rich' timestamp='1441262857' post='2857282']
I'm not asking you to trade -- I wouldn't -- and I'm definitely not trying to compare. That.is.my.whole.point. It's not supposed to be a p*ssing contest to see who's got the biggest experience.
I appear to be having trouble getting my point across.
[/quote]

Well, I agree, I don't want a pissing contest either.

Blue

[blue]

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1441296003' post='2857709']
Hmmm... I think something can be enjoyable but not as important as something else. A fair sized proportion of today's serious music is not enjoyable. But in the long run it may be more important. An album being enjoyable is down to the subjective experience of the listener. Whether an album is important may be more to do with what the album motivates it's listeners (note plural) to do.
[/quote]

The Pepper album will go down in history as "ground breaking" regardless of who enjoys it and who doesn't.

Blue

[blue]

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1441270517' post='2857343']

I understand how people treasure these moments and memories, when their mind was expanded. However, it seems that this is happening at the cost of devaluing the experiences of others who were around at a different time.[/quote]

There a cost and consequence to everything in life.

Unfortunately in this instance part of the cost is devaluing the experience of those that were not around. But they'll live.

Blue

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1441313474' post='2857913']
The Pepper album will go down in history as "ground breaking" regardless of who enjoys it and who doesn't.

Blue
[/quote]

Yup - it must be frackin' essential! geddit?

[blue]

[quote name='spinynorman' timestamp='1441286528' post='2857558']


The point is, everyone who is interested in music comes at it from a different perspective and you can have far more rewarding conversations if you accept that, rather than trying to ram a single point of view down their throats. [/quote]

Norman but it's no fun if you can't ram a point of view down one's throat. LOL

Blue

[blue]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1441271839' post='2857347']

If you're more insightful, then in a way, you are better[/quote]

I don't feel any better than anyone. I feel more insightful. LOL

Blue

[blue]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1441294883' post='2857700']
For me - it's "Rumours", entirely because in music's primary role of enjoyable entertainment I do enjoy "Rumours", though I'm not a fan of FM, whereas Sgt Pepper bores me to the point that though I own a few Beatles recordings I've never listened to Sgt Pepper all the way through.

That may be heresy to some ............. or maybe I just don't "[i]get it[/i]".
[/quote]

Fact, Rumors is a great album but it's not historical while Sgt Pepper is.

Blue

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1441314225' post='2857927']
I don't feel any better than anyone. I feel more insightful. LOL
[/quote]

Who says Yanks can't do irony?

Outstanding

[blue]

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1441293008' post='2857671']
That's an interesting point to bring up, as looking at some of the bigger names in contemporary pop, I think I can see a fair chunk of Michael Jackson influence, not just in the music but in the whole way of working. I mean that thing of having big productions by name producers, slick videos, performances as much focussed on dance and spectacle as the song etc. I'm not a huge MJ fan myself (so no epiphanies for me there), but there is probably a case to be made for him having changed the industry in a fairly significant way.
Of course, none of this has happened in a vacuum so anything which was important in the path of 20th century pop will have paved the way for it in some way.
[/quote]

I'll simplify this and I'm a huge MJ fan.

No Beatles, no MJ.

Blue

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1441314420' post='2857934']
Fact, Rumors is a great album but it's not historical while Sgt Pepper is.

Blue
[/quote]

Being one of the best selling albums of all time is historical is most people's terms of reference. A guy trying to browbeat people into seeing a band from his ancient past as being good/historical/best or whatever is very "meh".
I find the vast majority of Beatles music boring, such a thought is irrelevant and totally detached from their place in history. Having a personal opinion or musical taste is nothing whatsoever to do with "getting it".

[blue]

Guys,

I'm a prick when it comes to John, Paul, George and Ringo.

However, most, if not all the cats I know have always regarded the English as always being on the cutting edge of anything new in "Rock"

Blue

[blue]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1441314875' post='2857947']
Being one of the best selling albums of all time is historical is most people's terms of reference. A guy trying to browbeat people into seeing a band from his ancient past as being good/historical/best or whatever is very "meh".
I find the vast majority of Beatles music boring, such a thought is irrelevant and totally detached from their place in history. Having a personal opinion or musical taste is nothing whatsoever to do with "getting it".
[/quote]

See that's where your wrong IMHO. It's not the ancient past, it's still happening this very moment. That's the part you don't get Stu.

Blue

[Beer of the Bass]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1441314746' post='2857944']
I'll simplify this and I'm a huge MJ fan.

No Beatles, no MJ.

Blue
[/quote]

Oh, absolutely. MJ himself was a massive Beatles fan and in some ways the Jackson 5 format was an attempt to capitalise on that trend towards self-contained bands (rather than frontman plus sidemen) which the Beatles were instrumental in starting. I just find it interesting to think about which artists and events might be considered important when historians look back a century from now. I suspect that within his post-Beatles era, Michael Jackson may be considered to be one of the big things.

[blue]

[quote name='CamdenRob' timestamp='1441292556' post='2857659']
I dunno who was bigger but Michael Jackson was better.
[/quote]

To who? You?

Blue

[blue]

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1441315375' post='2857951'] I suspect that within his post-Beatles era, Michael Jackson may be considered to be one of the big things.[/quote]

Agreed, "one of".

Blue

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1441315173' post='2857950']
See that's where your wrong IMHO. It's not the ancient past, it's still happening this very moment. That's the part you don't get Stu.

Blue
[/quote]

There's a million and one things happening at very moment, I "get" many of them. Your favourite band that you saw half a century ago isn't one of them.
It takes a certain kind of "fan" to feel the need to convince others of the essentialness, "getting" or history of their chosen band. IME the actual people in those bands don't actually care. They feel secure in their place, while some of the fan(atics) don't. All very strange.