Another eye on the Beatles

[liqih]

the very interesting question to me is how musical talent works,

it seems obvious that talent is necessary but it's a minimal ingredient in the Success recipe

on the other and talent without success is useful,
meaning success as audience

[farlukar]

I think they made too many albums, but they did get better later on.

How does that work, then?

They should have just waited, skipping the releases of their albums and debut with their fifth album

[liqih]

I'm working on the theory that this was written by someone starting from the premise of "I don't like the Beatles, and this is why I'm right".

good theory, so you should write
"I like the Beatles and this is why I'm wrong"

[clueless]

I'm working on the theory that this was written by someone starting from the premise of "I don't like the Beatles, and this is why I'm right".

good theory, so you should write
"I like the Beatles and this is why I'm wrong"

why should I?

[clueless]

I mean...it's hopelessly confused. On one hand it's a rant about how "sub-standard" the Beatles were vocally and instrumentally, and on the other hand it's lauding people like the Velvet Underground, and by implication, noted crooner Lou Reed...

eh?

it's a muddled mish-mash of elitism and inverted snobbery.

eg "The Velvet Underground were better than the Beatles because the Beatles wrote pop songs and couldn't play and sing very well whereas so did the Velvet Underground except they was better cos they didn't sell as much an there songs whent on longererer which is better cos it's more alternative and oh excyoose me it's time for me tea"

[liqih]

I'm working on the theory that this was written by someone starting from the premise of "I don't like the Beatles, and this is why I'm right".

good theory, so you should write
"I like the Beatles and this is why I'm wrong"

why should I?

to prove your theory,

hey I'm talking as mathematician here, <grin>

[bluedad]

it's a muddled mish-mash of elitism and inverted snobbery.

as I was reading and drinking my first cup of coffee, I was thinking 'pompous intellectual..'

[bluedad]

er, not you clueless

[Rangtangtang]

Talent - the Beatles talent, is the raw material, but the success is the way that the raw material is utalized. Whith the sampler the raw material is what is being sampled, its a matter of what you do whith it. A person might go to Abbey road studio, and spend a lot of cash, and might have a hit. The Beatles was pysicadelic middle of the road music.

[clueless]

to prove your theory,

hey I'm talking as mathematician here, <grin>

it's not that kind of theory

it just struck me as someone aggrandising their own entirely subjective opinion with flimsy, slightly gauche argument, that's all.

[liqih]

I mean...it's hopelessly confused. On one hand it's a rant about how "sub-standard" the Beatles were vocally and instrumentally, and on the other hand it's lauding people like the Velvet Underground, and by implication, noted crooner Lou Reed...

eh?

it's a muddled mish-mash of elitism and inverted snobbery.

eg "The Velvet Underground were better than the Beatles because the Beatles wrote pop songs and couldn't play and sing very well whereas so did the Velvet Underground except they was better cos they didn't sell as much an there songs whent on longererer which is better cos it's more alternative and oh excyoose me it's time for me tea"

LOL, right,

but I think he's not necessary lauding the others, just pointing facts to who thinks Beatles were innovative,

to me this article sounds more political than asthetical

[chagzuki]

Beethoven didn't die poor. He had enormous popularity during his lifetime. So did Brahms. It was poor old Mozart and Schubert who didn't do so well on that front.

[liqih]

to prove your theory,

hey I'm talking as mathematician here, <grin>

it's not that kind of theory

it just struck me as someone aggrandising their own entirely subjective opinion with flimsy, slightly gauche argument, that's all.

yes, but doesn't every politician (lefty or righty) or philosopher do that?

which opinion is not subjective?

note: I'm not defending his point of view

[heeb]

The excellent internet radio station Radio Paradise has quite some Beatles tunes, see here:

http://radioparadise.com/modules.php?name=Music

And lo and behold, the Beatles are 3 times in the top 10 of all-time favorites on this station:

RP Classics: (top listener ratings - updated daily)
1. Beatles - A Day In The Life (9.473)
2. Beatles - You Never Give Me/The End (9.467)
3. Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here (9.415)
4. Jimi Hendrix - All Along The Watchtower (9.409)
5. Dave Brubeck Quartet - Take Five (9.387)
6. Simon & Garfunkel - The Sound Of Silence (9.385)
7. Jimi Hendrix - Little Wing (9.362)
8. Van Morrison - Into The Mystic (9.358)
9. Jimi Hendrix - Little Wing (live) (9.314)
10. Beatles - Let It Be (9.306)

Of the total 60 all-time favorites listed there, the Beatles have 9 songs.

I know, "if 50 million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing", but in this case, I just have to agree. The Beatles were awesome (though not everything they ever did was)!

[clueless]

to me this article sounds more political than asthetical

yep!