Beatles = 60's N'Sync

[Nancy_Lieder]

The Beattles are the most overrated band in the history of music. Their lyrics were sappy feel good crap, that only a "Yanni" fan could love. "Can't buy me la..........uv" what the hell is this crap??? It sound as weak as N'Sync's "Bye Bye Bye" crap.

Why must Boomers push their "The Beatles were the best ever", and "the last real music was in the 60's" crap.:rolleyes:


Whose with me???? Who also beleives that music was just as crappy during the "so-called Golden Age" of music, as it is now. The 60's produced ALOT of one-hit wonders and crappy music from people like the Osmonds and the Monkees.

[Congrats]

Thak you Nancy- I suppose you aren't a troll, after all...

This is a subject I have always wanted to discuss-


Another post...
Whose with me???? Who also beleives that music was just as crappy during the "so-called Golden Age" of music, as it is now. The 60's produced ALOT of one-hit wonders and crappy music from people like the Osmonds and the Monkees.

We always compare out music to a standard- and we often forget that we can't compare music because they have the same level of success- as in "Beatles=N'Sync" or "Beatles=Celine Dion". The Beatles are a rock band, and the only reason we really criticize our current culture should be that rock bands no longer really expereince the level or success they had.

We really have nothing to remember from the 90's- it was all taken up by revivals from other decades- and, of course, torchsongs. The Beatles may not have made as good music as, in my opinion, Radiohead, but it is the fact that they attained an unparalleled level of success while at the same time defining the genre they were succeeding in that makes them great. We don't have trailblazers today, at least those that gain notoriety. Because we have a culture afraid of innovation, our culture is now almost non-existent.

[Nancy_Lieder]

We always compare out music to a standard- and we often forget that we can't compare music because they have the same level of success- as in "Beatles=N'Sync" or "Beatles=Celine Dion". The Beatles are a rock band, and the only reason we really criticize our current culture should be that rock bands no longer really expereince the level or success they had.

We really have nothing to remember from the 90's- it was all taken up by revivals from other decades- and, of course, torchsongs. The Beatles may not have made as good music as, in my opinion, Radiohead, but it is the fact that they attained an unparalleled level of success while at the same time defining the genre they were succeeding in that makes them great. We don't have trailblazers today, at least those that gain notoriety. Because we have a culture afraid of innovation, our culture is now almost non-existent.


100% correct. I'm sitting here watching "American Idol" and this show is doing exactly what your describing. The winners of the show Popstars (Eden's Crush), and making the band (O-town) all have had hit records. This shows how manufactured the music is and has been.

Perhaps the only cutting edge music out there is rap, but it's too loud and fast for most people over 35. Not to mention all the fakes in that industry.


BTW-I'm obviously NOT the real kook Nancy Lieder, I just thought it was the perfect screename.

[James R]

The Beatles pioneered many things which are taken for granted in pop music these days. To appreciate just how innovative they were, you need to look at them in the context of their time, not with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

One small example: The Beatles were the first band ever to produce an album with no gaps between tracks. The same album was the first to include printed lyrics with the record.

[Nancy_Lieder]

The Beatles pioneered many things which are taken for granted in pop music these days. To appreciate just how innovative they were, you need to look at them in the context of their time, not with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

One small example: The Beatles were the first band ever to produce an album with no gaps between tracks. The same album was the first to include printed lyrics with the record.


WOW!! they were the first band ever to produce an album with no gaps between tracks.:rolleyes: Is that much of an innovation???

And so what if they were the first to include printed lyrics with the record. What does that have to do with the music they sang.

[Xev]

Their subject matter was unimaginative, 'tis true, and they are soooo overrated, 'tis true.

But I wouldn't go so far as to compare them to N*sucks. They had a technical skill and a wide range that N*Sucks does not have.

Although they were the first over-rated "boy band", and I their cheeriness makes me want to strangle a kitten. :p

[James R]

I said it was a small example.

When the Beatles started, the standard speed of records was 78 rpm. 2 track tape recorders were also standard. The recording process consisted of simply recording an in-studio performance. Production was minimal.

The Beatles were either the first or among the first bands to use a number of techniques, including:

* Overdubbing
* Double-tracking
* First pop song to have a faded-up intro.
* Echo delay
* amplifier feedback effects
* use of wah-wah pedal for guitar
* use of stringed instruments in a pop song
* use of eastern instruments such as the sitar and other unusual instruments
* speed variation (recording at one speed and playing back at a different speed on the track)
* Use of tape loops
* instrument sounds played and put on the recording in reverse.
* Direct injection of guitar into mixing console
* concentric run-out grooves on records
* inviting famous "outside" musicians to play on their albums.
* use of a synthesizer

Take one song: Revolution 9. This had cut up and reversed symphonic extracts, backwards violins, conversations in the background, a reversed mellotron and a repeated recording of somebody saying "Number nine", from a Royal Academy of Music exam. Incidentally, the last thing was probably one of the first instances of sampling - where would modern pop music be without that?

And that's just for starters. The Beatles were an incredibly creative bunch of musicians. N*Sync, along with majority of other pop musicians around right now, will be long forgotten in 40 years time. I'll put money on it.

[Nancy_Lieder]

I said it was a small example.

When the Beatles started, the standard speed of records was 78 rpm. 2 track tape recorders were also standard. The recording process consisted of simply recording an in-studio performance. Production was minimal.

The Beatles were either the first or among the first bands to use a number of techniques, including:

* Overdubbing
* Double-tracking
* First pop song to have a faded-up intro.
* Echo delay
* amplifier feedback effects
* use of wah-wah pedal for guitar
* use of stringed instruments in a pop song
* use of eastern instruments such as the sitar and other unusual instruments
* speed variation (recording at one speed and playing back at a different speed on the track)
* Use of tape loops
* instrument sounds played and put on the recording in reverse.
* Direct injection of guitar into mixing console
* concentric run-out grooves on records
* inviting famous "outside" musicians to play on their albums.
* use of a synthesizer


Sorry, almost all of the stuff you listed was done years before the Beatles came to be. How can you even think of putting "use of stringed instruments in a pop song" in the list, MANY artists were using this decades before the Beatles. Hell, even if they had started most of those things(which they didn't), it still wouldn't mean much to the arguement of how good their music was.

It nice that they tried many different things in their music, but that doesn't change the fact that they were an average band that is way overhyped.

[CelineFanatic2001US]

You can't put *Nsync down...they work hard for what they have accomplished. Alot of artists are compared to the Beatles because they did it first...I hate thier music but they were very successful. That's why they compare Celine Dion to them...she has now sold more albums then they did. *Nsync has great sales stats too but they are compared because of being a band of guys. I prefer Celine over everyone!!!!:D

[*stRgrL*]

Uhhh... didnt the Beatles actually write their own songs???

[Pollux V]

I can't believe you guys are saying this. I have to chime in, here. I do not think the Beatles were or are overrated. The stuff on the White Album and Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band is genius, they were the Mozarts of our era. You guys don't listen to the right stuff. Nsync is shitty, shitty music listened to by little girls who watch too much TV. The Beatles are listend to from around the world by millions. Their early stuff isn't too hot but the White Album is seriously the best that there is.

[fadingCaptain]

You freaks make me want to puke. Go listen to rubber soul, revolver, or anything after. It's apparent your only exposure to the beatles is their early 'hits' appearing on any oldies station.

Today's pop groups do not write music, do not play instruments, and are completely unoriginal. That is why they suck.

Celine Dion is for fans of elevator music.

The fact that people like you all are the majority is the reason popular music is so terrible. Music is not an artform to you people, it is background noise to clip your nails to.

I know it's all just opinions and everyone has 'em...but some opinions are flat out stupid.

[Tiassa]

I throw my vote behind the Beach Boys, though, as the best. Why? A number of things happened while they were working on Smile. That's the reason we all heard Smiley Smile instead of the album it was supposed to be. To wit, there's a reason Sergeant Pepper sounds like it does. McCartney heard what the Beach Boys were working on and they did some redesign for the album. Incidentally, the stereo mix of Sgt Pepper is the "bad" mix. The album was designed around a mono mix, and that mix took weeks. And then it was scrapped for the stereo mix, done in only a few days. What's really cool about it though is that audiophiles and pop musicians are nearly salivating over talk of releasing the mono mix. What's so special about that? Well, you'll finally get to hear Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band the way it was designed to sound. The stereo mix has the instruments out of balance with each other.

But the huge difference that a friend of mine pointed out is that with the success of the Beatles, rock and roll became collections of 10 four-minute songs, which had among its results what would turn out to be a condemnation of rock and roll, a relegation of its art form to "singles" music--albums composed of singles.

Had a series of events not occurred which contributed to Brian Wilson's breakdown, Smile would have set a different trend for rock and roll: 45 minutes of music, and not ten singles. Sure, there are singles on Smile, but all early indications are that they're a lot harder to identify. I mean, who can expect a zillion copies of "Child is the Father of the Man" to sell? Or "Plymouth Rock Roll Over"? Of course, one of the clinchers is a track referred to as "Veggies", which many people would like to hear in its finished form. The current version, a stereo mix taken from studio masters, features Paul McCartney of the Beatles on the carrots.

The Beatles ended up winning that round. And what a round it was. Of course, if they were merely the N'Sync of their day, Sir Paul McCartney probably wouldn't be the founder of the most prestigious school of its kind (well, there almost is no other at this level), LIPA. Graduates of the sound engineering programs probably wouldn't be considered the best in the business, either.

The Beatles helped define rock and roll.

N'Sync is just a flash in the pan. Although I did hear them do a cover of a Bee Gees song. And then I heard the Bee Gees' songs "Alone" and "This is Where I Came In" and realized that N'Sync could be the next Bee Gees, and there are worse things in the world to be.

Although I have to admit that had the Beach Boys gotten Smile to the masses when they intended to, rock and roll would be slightly less accessible to the aspiring musician.

Consider this: Beach Boys, Beatles, Pink Floyd. Why was there not greater cooperation between them? The Floyd and The Beatles recorded at Abbey Road at the same time, yet their common record label never even thought about the idea of getting the bands together (Syd Barret was a huge Lennon fan) and while Paul McCartney did eventually appear on a Beach Boys' recording, a question that never really got explored is what would have happened if the label-mates had "switched out"; that is, what if Brian composed and produced with the Beatles after they stopped touring? That's a silly speculation, though. It stems from tavern talk about how it is that three of the greatest rock and roll bands ever, despite having a recording label (and in some cases a recording studio) in common, didn't mingle to a greater extent.

Of course, the idea might seem a little more normal to me. During the "grunge" rage, a number of "family trees" of Seattle music were released, showing personnel connections throughout. It was absolutely incestuous. It's kind of like playing the game of seeing how directly you can link anyone in Hollywood to Kevin Bacon, or some such. But we might look to Janis Joplin and say,"It's all the same f--king band, man."

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[Triente Siete]

Originally posted by Nancy_Lieder
Whose with me????


Absolutely no one. Popular music peaked in the 70's (time of real bands that sung about real music) Nowadays music is all about making money (a.k.a. Britney Spears, boy bands). So you must compare: Is worthless drugged up music better than music made to make money?

Music is made to express ones self, and expressing ones thoughts while high is more music than music made for cash. The only band from the 90's we should remember is Nirvana. Coincidentally, Nirvana's lead singer commit suicide. What can we infer from that?

[Nancy_Lieder]

I can't believe you guys are saying this. I have to chime in, here. I do not think the Beatles were or are overrated. The stuff on the White Album and Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band is genius, they were the Mozarts of our era. You guys don't listen to the right stuff. Nsync is shitty, shitty music listened to by little girls who watch too much TV. The Beatles are listend to from around the world by millions. Their early stuff isn't too hot but the White Album is seriously the best that there is.


Let me first say that I hope everyone realizes that I think N'Sync music is crap. EVERY sane person knows this.

That said, the Beatles are still overrated. "The Mozarts of our era"????:rolleyes:. Are you serious??? There is nothing genius about any of their music, maybe it spoke to alot of love sick, 60's girls who had a crush on John Lennon and Paul. But it's nothing special. The Rolling Stones were a much better band than the Beatles.

I'm not here to change you Baby Boomers minds, I simply stating an opinion of someone with a different take on these so-called "geniuses".

[Triente Siete]

Thats right. Vh1 voted Revolver to be the #1 greatest abum ever made. However, I dont completely support that. I find the three greatest rock masterpieces musically to be the albums:


Back in Black by AC/DC

Apprettite for Destruction by Guns 'N Roses

Dr. Feel Good by Motlëy Cruë

[Tyler]

Okay, I could get really worked up about this and give you about a 40 page essay on why the Beatles are much better than you seem to think. But I won't because it would annoy everyone.

Still....
1) The Beatles did originate many of the things on that list made. The others, they popularized
2) Every band you hear today that is good was influenced by the Beatles. The Beatles CREATED rock and roll. Elvis is cool music, but it is not yet rock and roll.

It is quite likely you can argue that the early stuff of The Beatles is 60's pop-esque N*Sync. However, I would still greatly disagree. For starters, musicians today don't write their own lyrics. Secondly, they don't write their own instrumentals. Third, they don't play instruments. Fourth, their music generally has zero meaning. Now before you jump the gun and say "But Beatles early stuff has no meaning! It's just love-crap!"

Rubber Soul saw the first Beatles songs not to do with love in ANY way. Help! however was the first album that The Beatles became what we now respect as The Beatles. Before that album there's a couple songs that are just la-la songs that sound cool, but the rest of them are just la-la songs. Help! was Lennon and McCartney shortly after being introduced to friend Bob Dylan and marijuana. Add those two things together and you'll get one heck of a lyrical add-on to your songs. Sit down and read some of (mainly Lennon's) lyrics from that song. Help! the song was actually the first autobiographical song by a Beatle and is not just a pop-song. It's very much an insight into John's life (Lennon would later say; "My big regret as a Beatle was that Help! got turned from a slow Dylan-esque lyric-oriented song to a happy Beatles pop-song. I never wanted to let that happen again").

Anyway, Rubber Soul is the intro to great Beatles music.
Drive My Car - Paul song with little meaning but a statement on what Paul saw in media
Norweigan Wood - Reportadly about two lesbians. God knows how that rumour got started. Anyway, Norweigan Wood is a quite beautiful song.
You Won't See Me - la-la song.
Nowhere Man - Aren't we all kind of nowhere men? That was John's philosophical question of the moment.
Think For Yourself - George's first real attempt on statement on government.
The Word - And thus begins the sixties.
Michelle - Never been a fan of this song, but most think it's quite beautiful.
What Goes On - la-la song. But it was actually written a year ago, before they met Dylan. Just it wasn't put on the last albums.
Girl - Another Lennon-insight song. About his views on women and his lack of self-respect in dealing with romance.
I'm Looking Through You - Probably sounds like a stoners song. And, well, it is after McCartney first found weed. But still, it's more about his problems with relationships.
In My Life - I think it's a Lennon masterpiece. The music is beautiful. The lyrics are soft and fitting.
Wait - stupid song. The Beatles wanted it off the album. Record company said no.
Run For Your Life - another on how John felt about his love life. He was having a lot of problems dealing with women, but more so in dealing with himself. This was another attempt at trying to figure out what he was doing and thinking that was destroying the women he loved.


If you can show me N*Sync doing songs like that (let alone writing them, or the music)....

Anyway, some other songs I love.......

Taxman - another political song.

Elanor Rigby - name me one pop band that made a song as beautiful as this in the last 10 years

I'm Only Sleeping - John was becoming increasingly philosophical and increasingly lazy with the world. He didn't see point in much ("The only physical thing I can bring myself to do is have sex") and was expressing his confusion with everyone hating him for doing this and explaining his side.

Love You To - Indian music in rock??? Who would do that?? The Beatles.

She Said She Said - From your drug post I'm guessing you have experienced with halluciongens. So, uh, read the lyrics and remember this was John's first trip on acid.

For No One - There's a couple specific lines in this one that stand out......"she says that long ago she knew someone but now he's gone, She doesn't need him, your day breaks, your mind aches,
There will be times when all the things she said,will fill your head, you won't forget her"

Tomorrow Never Knows - John's interputation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. N*Sync or Britney been talkin' about that much lately?

Sgt Pepper's album is filled with great music to get stoned by. This album was actually the centrepiece of 1967 - "The Summer of Love". The hippies took this as their flag and The Beatles were almost disgusted by it. Harrison said he want to San Fran and was amazed to see the attitude some of the Hippies had and how much it differed to what they gave out as their message to the media.

A Day In The Life - Brilliant musically. Sit on a hallucinogen and listen (if you can pay attention) to this song. I could have sworn to god one time that I was surrounded by an orchestra and when the climax wore off in front of my face was a single piano key going up and down. I almost died.

Dear Prudence - another beautiful song about Mia Farrow's sister.

While My Guitar Gently Weeps - George Harrison's writing combined with Eric Clapton's guitar. Hello? How could this be bad? It's impossible for this song to be anything but amazing. Clapton's guitar work is brilliant and Harrison's lyrics are the beginning of his lyrical talent.

Hapiness Is A Warn Gun - John saw an NRA magazine. Felt a little odd about the idea of hapiness being a warm gun.



There's many more. But I actually gotta go. I'll do the rest later. In short - I think you're an idiot. But I'll get more to that later.

Oh, and Xev if you want some not love-fake-romance shit - Why Don't We....

[Tyler]

The Stones? Can you show me some of their lyrical brilliance? Or meaningful songs?

[Nancy_Lieder]

Thats right. Vh1 voted Revolver to be the #1 greatest abum ever made. However, I dont completely support that. I find the three greatest rock masterpieces musically to be the albums:


Back in Black by AC/DC

Apprettite for Destruction by Guns 'N Roses

Dr. Feel Good by Motlëy Cruë


I think you understand my point now. There is good music today, just like there was good music in previous decades. And most music today sucks, just like it did in previous decades also. The 3 "masterpieces" you love are post the Boomer era, and show that all era have good music.

Musical taste is such an individually thing, and because it's art, evaluating it is near impossible. I love rock, rap, classical, and even some pop music, while another might like country, jazz, and folk. Every generation has it's favorites that spoke to what they were feeling during their era, and those people should also respect other groups and kinds of music that speak to different generations than their own.

I'm not saying that the Beatles sucked, and the comparison to N'Sync was more of a joke, However, Boomers need to stop pushing their musical taste as the only one of any value. It comes off very arrogant.

[Nancy_Lieder]

Every band you hear today that is good was influenced by the Beatles. The Beatles CREATED rock and roll. Elvis is cool music, but it is not yet rock and roll.


:p The Beatles created Rock n Roll????? Hahahaha, you also belive Elvis wasn't rock n roll either??? There you go disrespecting the generation that came before yours. Paul has acknowledged that he was influenced by the many Black artists of the previous decades that sang rock n roll before it become mainstream.


I would disect the rest of your post Tyler, however, it's so longwinded and emotional, I feel there is nothing one could say to convince you otherwise.

Once again, I have no problem with people liking the Beatles, we all have our favorites. I'm just sick of the overhype they get, they DIDN'T invent rock n roll, and they're not geniuses.

[CelineFanatic2001US]

Real artists don't need to write thier own songs to cover up the fact that they can't sing! Celine Dion doesn't need to write her own songs cause at the end of the day, her voice brings the money in. Not saying that she doesn't write songs...she co-wrote "Treat Her Like A Lady" in 1997 and on her upcoming french album, she writes a song with Jean-Jacques Goldman.

FYI: *Nsync DOES write songs!

FYI: Celine Dion isn't in the "elevator music" category. Buy one of her albums and you will find out that she is pop/rock. That's the category she is in at the record store too....not easy listening!

[fadingCaptain]

they're not geniuses
So, who is?

Also, quit saying 'boomers'. I am not a boomer and I know Tyler isn't one. Why do you think all beatles fans fit into a certain age group?

[Nancy_Lieder]

So, who is?

Also, quit saying 'boomers'. I am not a boomer and I know Tyler isn't one. Why do you think all beatles fans fit into a certain age group?

The only reason I said Boomers is because they are the vast majority of those putting the Beatles on this pedastal. It's also to annoy...:D

Also, I can't think of any music artist who is a genius. Einstein was a genius, not John Lennon. I feel the same way about those that call Picasso's artwork the work of a genius.

The phrase, "Art is in the eye of the beholder" is so true. One man's trash is another man's treasure.;)

[Neutrino_Albatross]

The phrase, "Art is in the eye of the beholder" is so true. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
If you actually believe that than why the hell did you start this thread putting down peoples musical taste.

The Beatles created Rock n Roll????? Hahahaha, you also belive Elvis wasn't rock n roll either???
That largely depends on how you define rock and roll. Tyler just defines Rock and Roll slightly different than you. The way i see it Elvis was 50's rock and roll (which i hate with a passion but thats irrelevent) The beetles revolutionized the genre almost all music after them is at least partly based on them. But i don't think they really created it.

Also, I can't think of any music artist who is a genius. Einstein was a genius, not John Lennon. I feel the same way about those that call Picasso's artwork the work of a genius.
So there's only one kind of genius right?


Boomers need to stop pushing their musical taste as the only one of any value. It comes off very arrogant.
And this isn't the same thing you're doing?

For the record i don't really consider myself a beetles fan but i accept the fact that they are pretty much the basis of all modern music and respect them for that.

[Pollux V]

"The Mozarts of our era"????. Are you serious???

Absolutely.

The Beatles made what you deem cool and worthy today. Celine Dion or, one could say, any band or person could never measure up to their incredible talent. The music business is about making money now. Boybands are a dime a dozen, and they aren't original and arguably not good looking (although I wouldn't know...). I heard once that there was a program on the market back in the eighties that could modify the notes sung on a recording, to make them correct, or even spectacular. Now we know why pop singers never sing at their concerts or in parades, they lipsink, because they didn't sing in the first place! This doesn't happen all the time, there is some real singing talent out there, but they don't write their music, or play instruments. The Beatles did everything. You could not ask for better music.

For me, I listen to the Beatles, and assorted classical music. That's it.

[Nancy_Lieder]

If you actually believe that than why the hell did you start this thread putting down peoples musical taste.

How have I put down anyone's musical taste, my comparison with N'Sync isn't based on the talents(The Beatles obviously had alot more). I'm comparing the hype the two bands get and how it elevates some groups to mythical standards.



That largely depends on how you define rock and roll. Tyler just defines Rock and Roll slightly different than you. The way i see it Elvis was 50's rock and roll (which i hate with a passion but thats irrelevent) The beetles revolutionized the genre almost all music after them is at least partly based on them. But i don't think they really created it.

The Beatles were influenced by previous artists also, and it's ridiculous to say that "almost all music after them is at least partly based on them", this is the kind of gross mistastment that annoys people. There were many influecial sounds throughtout the 60's, Clapton, Dillion, the Stones, Hendrix, etc...

Was metal, punk, grunge, rap, or many of the music forms that came after based on the Beatles, I don't think so.



So there's only one kind of genius right?

The term genius is such a subjective one. Meryll Streep is a great actress, but is she a genius. Was Shakespiere a genius. Some will say yes, others no. In the world of artforms, very little is concrete.



For the record i don't really consider myself a beetles fan but i accept the fact that they are pretty much the basis of all modern music and respect them for that.

This is why I made this post, the Beatles ARE NOT the basis of all modern music. Music evoles from MANY different sources and artists. From Mozart,... to the early century Jazz players, ...to the original rockers like Elvis, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, etc., ...to the 60's rockers, like the Beatles, Clapton, Dillion, ...to disco(on second thought skip disco):D, ...to the Metal and Punk bands of the 80's, ...to the rappers of the 90's.. Music is a constantly changing art.

[Neutrino_Albatross]

How have I put down anyone's musical taste
Lets see here.

Their lyrics were sappy feel good crap, that only a "Yanni" fan could love.

what the hell is this crap???

It sound as weak as N'Sync's "Bye Bye Bye" crap.

Let me first say that I hope everyone realizes that I think N'Sync music is crap. EVERY sane person knows this.
Plus the fact that this thread itself is more or less an insut against people musical taste. (and those are just the really blatant ones there are plenty of more borderline comments that i didn't include ;))

The Beatles were influenced by previous artists
Who said they weren't? All music is based on what came before.

this is the kind of gross mistastment that annoys people
Actually i will revise my initial statement. All rock and off-shoots owe something to the beetles. I do realize that unrealated genres owe little or nothing to them.

There were many influecial sounds throughtout the 60's, Clapton, Dillion, the Stones, Hendrix, etc...
True but i would say that the beetles were probally the most influential.

Music is a constantly changing art
Exactly. And the beetles were a very critical part of that.

[Nancy_Lieder]

The Beatles made what you deem cool and worthy today. Celine Dion or, one could say, any band or person could never measure up to their incredible talent.

:rolleyes: Do you pray to an altar of John Lennon every night...


The music business is about making money now. Boybands are a dime a dozen, and they aren't original and arguably not good looking (although I wouldn't know...).

The music business has ALWAYS been about making money. Do you think the Osmonds, Monkees, etc., were about talent????:rolleyes:


I heard once that there was a program on the market back in the eighties that could modify the notes sung on a recording, to make them correct, or even spectacular. Now we know why pop singers never sing at their concerts or in parades, they lipsink, because they didn't sing in the first place! This doesn't happen all the time, there is some real singing talent out there, but they don't write their music, or play instruments. The Beatles did everything. You could not ask for better music.


The are tons of good bands and singers who wrote their own songs, and sang without assitance.

Pop singers like Britney Spears and N'Sync though are manufactured.

[Nancy_Lieder]

.........those quotes were sarcasm for the most part, I think it's pretty obvious. Notice how I use "crap" in all of them.




Actually i will revise my initial statement. All rock and off-shoots owe something to the beetles. I do realize that unrealated genres owe little or nothing to them.

The Beatles were very influencial on the sounds of the 60's, but metal, punk, etc, and modern day rock, NO. Once again, this doesn't mean they were innovative, but so were Dillion, Clapton, the Stones, Hendrix, and so on...........


My main point with this post is that they are overhyped and given a godlike status because the generation that grew up on them is start to run things right now.
It's all a matter of opinion.

[CelineFanatic2001US]

:D I just say: DIVA - LAS - VEGAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LONG LIVE CELINE DION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Tiassa]

I would actually recommend that you spend some time hanging out with musicians who are currently recording.

You'll find that to pop musicians and rock and roll musicians, The Beatles are vastly important.

N'Sync will not be held up as an example in the future.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[CelineFanatic2001US]

Hey! I'm also an iMac user! Celine Dion rules...can I hear who likes Celine????!!!! :p

[Increan]

Originally posted by CelineFanatic2001US
Real artists don't need to write thier own songs to cover up the fact that they can't sing! Celine Dion doesn't need to write her own songs cause at the end of the day, her voice brings the money in. Not saying that she doesn't write songs...she co-wrote "Treat Her Like A Lady" in 1997 and on her upcoming french album, she writes a song with Jean-Jacques Goldman.

I couldn't care if you were the best singer in the world in the end it's the lyrics that come through. I'd rather hear a self-written song sung by the worst singer in the world than the best singer singing something they didn't write (that's called selling-out:rolleyes: )


FYI: *Nsync DOES write songs!

Bullshit, and if they do, I bet a million dollars they aren't worth the paper they're written on.



FYI: Celine Dion isn't in the "elevator music" category. Buy one of her albums and you will find out that she is pop/rock. That's the category she is in at the record store too....not easy listening!

Pop music is one of the worst types of music for one simple fact. It lacks true lyrical content, not to mention the music itself is crap.

[Tyler]

Just as an opener.....The UK does a poll each year of recording musicians. Almost every year The Beatles have been deemed the single most influntial recording artists to British musicians. They were upset last year loosing slightly to Radiohead.


"The Beatles created Rock n Roll????? Hahahaha, you also belive Elvis wasn't rock n roll either??? There you go disrespecting the generation that came before yours. Paul has acknowledged that he was influenced by the many Black artists of the previous decades that sang rock n roll before it become mainstream."

The Beatles did create the rock and roll you know today. I take it you have indeed listened to Elvis. The rock that Elvis' brought to the table was the first beginning of the genre and was still largely similar to the black music he "borrowed" (to quote an MTV special) it from. The Beatles started a change in that. Like I said, their early is pure pop. After that you get into rock 'n roll inspired by Elvis, Chuck Berry, Bob Dylan and many others. Consider Elvis and Berry and such the foundation of rock; The Beatles made revolutionized it. (As a note; saying Paul was influenced is like saying we breath oxygen. No artist was not inspired by a previous artist).


"I would disect the rest of your post Tyler, however, it's so longwinded and emotional, I feel there is nothing one could say to convince you otherwise."

I wrote less in that post than you have in your combined posts. And I certainly said things of more value to a conversation than 'it's crap' or 'no they didn't revolutionize those things!'. Anyway, besides the point. You've begun your sciforums experience with one of the largest signs of weakness and inability to debate. Just thought I'd let you know.


"Once again, I have no problem with people liking the Beatles, we all have our favorites. I'm just sick of the overhype they get, they DIDN'T invent rock n roll, and they're not geniuses."

True. I retract my statement, it was wrong. However, they did revolutionize it and I maintain that.


"The only reason I said Boomers is because they are the vast majority of those putting the Beatles on this pedastal. It's also to annoy..."

I'm sixteen. Almost all of my good friends thuroughly enjoy The Beatles.


"Also, I can't think of any music artist who is a genius. Einstein was a genius, not John Lennon. I feel the same way about those that call Picasso's artwork the work of a genius."

Did you know Imagine (by Lennon) is actually a musically perfect song? Anyway, that's not that important otherwise. The word genius is subjective no matter what.


"How have I put down anyone's musical taste, my comparison with N'Sync isn't based on the talents(The Beatles obviously had alot more). I'm comparing the hype the two bands get and how it elevates some groups to mythical standards."

Let's see...
The Beatles changed popular music.
After Elvis 'quit' there was a number of rock and roll artists who sadly died and rock died. To quote a recording company that The Beatles first tried to sign with "Rock groups are gone. And guitars are on the way out." Pop was the music in America; pop and folk. Older folk listened to Sinatra and their old music. The youngsters listened to pop (like The Beatles' early stuff) or got into politics and listened to folk. Enter Rubber Soul and you find the first rock and roll album since about 1960 to have any popularity really.


"The Beatles were influenced by previous artists also, and it's ridiculous to say that "almost all music after them is at least partly based on them", this is the kind of gross mistastment that annoys people. There were many influecial sounds throughtout the 60's, Clapton, Dillion, the Stones, Hendrix, etc..."

Definetly. Did you know Hendrix was a massive Beatles fan? Did you know Clapton was? And Dylan loved Lennon's stuff (though, I never heard him comment on McCartney) and Harrison's? And The Stones and The Beatles were great friends (Lennon and McCartney even handed over a song for The Stones to cover that made them popular in the U.S. and opened them up to superstardom)? And The Beatles probably loved all of these guys???


"Was metal, punk, grunge, rap, or many of the music forms that came after based on the Beatles, I don't think so."

Actually yeah. The genre Heavy Metal came off a Beatles song. Original just called Heavy Rock it was a term first given to The Beatles' I Feel Fine. The song definetly sounds weak compared to Heavy Metal today - but when you listen to Black Sabbath do you think of insane devil worshipping? I just hear cool rock and roll, it doesn't sound hard at all.

Grunge and Punk basically originated off The Ramones and The Sex Pistols and Dead Kennedy's. British bands who grew up listening to The Beatles.

I'm sure many rappers enjoy The Beatles and many hate them (I believe it was Dr Dre who said Sgt. Pepper's was the album that made him want to enter music - but it may have been the Run DMC guys, can't remember). Rap however was created off of a different thread, the other evolution of early American black music.


"The term genius is such a subjective one. Meryll Streep is a great actress, but is she a genius. Was Shakespiere a genius. Some will say yes, others no. In the world of artforms, very little is concrete."

I would say Ed Norton, Kevin Spacey, Al Pacino and such are dramatic geniuses. I would say Shakespeare is a literary genius. I would say The Beatles were musical geniuses.


"This is why I made this post, the Beatles ARE NOT the basis of all modern music. Music evoles from MANY different sources and artists. From Mozart,... to the early century Jazz players, ...to the original rockers like Elvis, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, etc., ...to the 60's rockers, like the Beatles, Clapton, Dillion, ...to disco(on second thought skip disco), ...to the Metal and Punk bands of the 80's, ...to the rappers of the 90's.. Music is a constantly changing art."

First off - Dylan. Spelling it Dillion just makes you look like you know nothing about the music (unless you're talking about the guitar manufactorer, which I don't think you are). Disco was an important (however ugly) era in music. The seventies had two major forms of music come out - disco and 70's rock. Disco is the continuation of pop. Seventies rock (CCR, Sabbath, Jefferson Airplane....) is the continuation of 60's rock which came into it's own because of The Beatles. I wish the 80's would disappear. There was some very good music (most notably in my mind - The Joshua Tree by U2) in the decade, but the majority of it was absolute shit in my mind. Guns 'N Roses and such are all cool to listen to, but it is in no way talented or intelligent music.


"Do you pray to an altar of John Lennon every night..."

Is there any relevance to this?


"The music business has ALWAYS been about making money. Do you think the Osmonds, Monkees, etc., were about talent????"

How about The Beatles? Hey I got an idea. Name me one rock band (just one) that quit touring COMPLETELY so that they focus on writing and producing music to the full potential of their abilities? Better yet - one band that did this COMPLETELY during or before The Beatles' time?


"The are tons of good bands and singers who wrote their own songs, and sang without assitance.
Pop singers like Britney Spears and N'Sync though are manufactured"

Definetly. No one is insinuating otherwise.


"The Beatles were very influencial on the sounds of the 60's, but metal, punk, etc, and modern day rock, NO. Once again, this doesn't mean they were innovative, but so were Dillion, Clapton, the Stones, Hendrix, and so on..........."

They each had their own additions. The Stones I wouldn't say were the innovative. Influential definetly, but not that innovative. My question remains - can you point out any Stones' songs that are deeply intellectual or meaningful or any that are brilliant musically? This isn't to say I don't enjoy the Stones. I think Sympathy For the Devil is one of my favourite songs ever. Angie is too.


"My main point with this post is that they are overhyped and given a godlike status because the generation that grew up on them is start to run things right now.
It's all a matter of opinion."

Classic rock is the greatest genre there is in my opinion. And The Beatles were the kings of classic rock. I've few friends (keep in mind, I'm 16) who don't love The Beatles. It's not just the 50 year olds who love it. Every guy at the bike store I work at (all in their 20's-30's) love two bands the most - Floyd and The Beatles.




Celine:

"Real artists don't need to write thier own songs to cover up the fact that they can't sing! Celine Dion doesn't need to write her own songs cause at the end of the day, her voice brings the money in. Not saying that she doesn't write songs...she co-wrote "Treat Her Like A Lady" in 1997 and on her upcoming french album, she writes a song with Jean-Jacques Goldman"

They can't sing? McCartney and Lennon have awsome voices. So does Clapton. And Brian Wilson?

Anyway, Celine doesn't write her own songs because she has little talent in it. Just like people who write music for pop singers - they have talent in writing pop songs but not in singing them.


"FYI: Celine Dion isn't in the "elevator music" category. Buy one of her albums and you will find out that she is pop/rock. That's the category she is in at the record store too....not easy listening"

Pop rock eh? Kind of like how Avril Lavigne fits into Pop-punk? Adding pop before a genre instantly removes the credibility the original genre brings to the table.


"Hey! I'm also an iMac user! Celine Dion rules...can I hear who likes Celine????!!!!"

No one, she's absolutely brutal. I would sooner shot myself than spend more than 20 minutes listening to her.

[Nancy_Lieder]

I would actually recommend that you spend some time hanging out with musicians who are currently recording.

You'll find that to pop musicians and rock and roll musicians, The Beatles are vastly important.

N'Sync will not be held up as an example in the future.



I'm not saying that the Beatles weren't important, I just don't feel that their "geniuses" or that "all modern music is derived from them", as many of their fans do.

I TOTALLY agree about N'Sync, and have already given my opinion on them.

[Tyler]

Just as a note; N*Sync isn't influential. But the Backstreet Boys sure as hell are.

BB started a trend. Boy and girl bands. Today it's (I'm assuming here) the largest money-grosser in music. Whether everyone but 12 year old girls hates the music or note, it is still extremely influential.

And before BB there was New Kids on the Block. And Milli Vanilli (until that whole scandal thingy). Pop bands, no matter how utterly horrible they are, are still influential. Though, more in monatary value than musical.

[Nancy_Lieder]

Just as an opener.....The UK does a poll each year of recording musicians. Almost every year The Beatles have been deemed the single most influntial recording artists to British musicians. They were upset last year loosing slightly to Radiohead.

Polls aren't a very good indicator of much. Is Radiohead the best ever then???


The Beatles did create the rock and roll you know today. I take it you have indeed listened to Elvis. The rock that Elvis' brought to the table was the first beginning of the genre and was still largely similar to the black music he "borrowed" (to quote an MTV special) it from. The Beatles started a change in that. Like I said, their early is pure pop. After that you get into rock 'n roll inspired by Elvis, Chuck Berry, Bob Dylan and many others. Consider Elvis and Berry and such the foundation of rock; The Beatles made revolutionized it. (As a note; saying Paul was influenced is like saying we breath oxygen. No artist was not inspired by a previous artist).

Once again, Paul has said that their style was derived from Black artists of the prvious decades. The Beatles helped bring rock mainstream, but didn't create it.


I wrote less in that post than you have in your combined posts. And I certainly said things of more value to a conversation than 'it's crap' or 'no they didn't revolutionize those things!'. Anyway, besides the point. You've begun your sciforums experience with one of the largest signs of weakness and inability to debate. Just thought I'd let you know.

I already explained earlier that I was being sarcastic with the "crap" statements. And there is a BIG difference between creating or revolutionizing things.


True. I retract my statement, it was wrong. However, they did revolutionize it and I maintain that.

I totally agree then, they did revolutionize rock n roll, no arguement here.


I'm sixteen. Almost all of my good friends thuroughly enjoy The Beatles.

I never said the Beatles didn't have fans who weren't Boomers.


Did you know Imagine (by Lennon) is actually a musically perfect song? Anyway, that's not that important otherwise. The word genius is subjective no matter what.

You were do so well....... Please explain to me how its "musically perfect"??????


Let's see...
The Beatles changed popular music.
After Elvis 'quit' there was a number of rock and roll artists who sadly died and rock died. To quote a recording company that The Beatles first tried to sign with "Rock groups are gone. And guitars are on the way out." Pop was the music in America; pop and folk. Older folk listened to Sinatra and their old music. The youngsters listened to pop (like The Beatles' early stuff) or got into politics and listened to folk. Enter Rubber Soul and you find the first rock and roll album since about 1960 to have any popularity really.
.

At least you acknowledge that ther was rock n roll before the Beatles, unlike some others...

I agree with your above statement, the Beatles brought Rock n Roll mainstream again. I've said that throughout this thread.


Definetly. Did you know Hendrix was a massive Beatles fan? Did you know Clapton was? And Dylan loved Lennon's stuff (though, I never heard him comment on McCartney) and Harrison's? And The Stones and The Beatles were great friends (Lennon and McCartney even handed over a song for The Stones to cover that made them popular in the U.S. and opened them up to superstardom)? And The Beatles probably loved all of these guys???

Once again, I've never disputed any of this....


Actually yeah. The genre Heavy Metal came off a Beatles song. Original just called Heavy Rock it was a term first given to The Beatles' I Feel Fine. The song definetly sounds weak compared to Heavy Metal today - but when you listen to Black Sabbath do you think of insane devil worshipping? I just hear cool rock and roll, it doesn't sound hard at all.

Your REALLY reaching............. my friend.;) I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.


Grunge and Punk basically originated off The Ramones and The Sex Pistols and Dead Kennedy's. British bands who grew up listening to The Beatles.

Listening to Beatle music doesn't make them the creators of the style.


I would say Ed Norton, Kevin Spacey, Al Pacino and such are dramatic geniuses. I would say Shakespeare is a literary genius. I would say The Beatles were musical geniuses.

Can't agree, the word genuis is very abstract when you apply it to the arts. But then again, just my opinion.


First off - Dylan. Spelling it Dillion just makes you look like you know nothing about the music (unless you're talking about the guitar manufactorer, which I don't think you are). Disco was an important (however ugly) era in music. The seventies had two major forms of music come out - disco and 70's rock. Disco is the continuation of pop. Seventies rock (CCR, Sabbath, Jefferson Airplane....) is the continuation of 60's rock which came into it's own because of The Beatles. I wish the 80's would disappear. There was some very good music (most notably in my mind - The Joshua Tree by U2) in the decade, but the majority of it was absolute shit in my mind. Guns 'N Roses and such are all cool to listen to, but it is in no way talented or intelligent music.

Thank you for the spellcheck, but I know how to spell Dylan's name. When you type looonnnnngggggg post really fast, you tend to make errors.

I know disco was important, once again I was using sarcasm.

As for the 80's, I prefer the music of that decade much more to the 60's, however that's my personal opinion.


Classic rock is the greatest genre there is in my opinion. And The Beatles were the kings of classic rock. I've few friends (keep in mind, I'm 16) who don't love The Beatles. It's not just the 50 year olds who love it. Every guy at the bike store I work at (all in their 20's-30's) love two bands the most - Floyd and The Beatles.

Hey I'm 25 and almost all of my friends dislike the Beatle's music. I'm not here to change people's musical taste, just for some to stop putting their genre as the only good one there was.

[Tyler]

"Polls aren't a very good indicator of much. Is Radiohead the best ever then???"

Did I insinuate they were? Or that polls show this?
Actually I posted the poll thing not to show how great The Beatles were....but to prove my side on how influential and innovative they were.


"Once again, Paul has said that their style was derived from Black artists of the prvious decades. The Beatles helped bring rock mainstream, but didn't create it."

And black music was derived from something else and it all goes back to Gregorian chanting and beyond that. I fail to see the relevance though?


"You were do so well....... Please explain to me how its "musically perfect"??????"

The progression. The chord changes and such. If you want me to get a full break down of this I'll ask my mom to write it down for you. (yes, I know, I sound stupid saying that but my mom is a professional musician and associate of the Royal Conservatory). She explained it all to me once about 3 months ago and I honestly can't remember it being the amateur musician that I am.


"At least you acknowledge that ther was rock n roll before the Beatles, unlike some others...
I agree with your above statement, the Beatles brought Rock n Roll mainstream again. I've said that throughout this thread"

The rock, punk, pop, heavy metal (and every other child of rock and roll) you hear today would never have existed without The Beatles. Who would have never existed without Elvis. Who would have never existed without black music. Who....

You get hte point. Anyway, what I'm trying to show is that The Beatles were the most recent breaking point. Hendrix was massive. But take away his guitar revolutionizing and there would still be a good amount of the music there is today. Take away Clapton and much would exist. Take away The Beatles? Nope. Take away Elvis; no Beatles. It just so happens that The Beatles are the most recent of these bands you cannot take away and still see music resemble anything like it is today.


"Your REALLY reaching............. my friend. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one."

It's not even a disagreeable thing though. The term Heavy Rock was first given to The Beatles. This isn't my opinion. If you asked me, I would say I Feel Fine is no where near the hard rock of today or the seventies even. But it was the first song listed as Hard Rock.


"Listening to Beatle music doesn't make them the creators of the style"

Think those groups would have been the same without The Beatles? Doubt it. Just like they wouldn't be the same without their other influences.


"Can't agree, the word genuis is very abstract when you apply it to the arts. But then again, just my opinion."

The word genius is no more abstract when applied to arts than when applied to anything else. It does, however, see many different views. One of my ex-girlfriends would call Josh Hartnett a dramatic genius. Then look at Usual Suspects and go "I don't get it". Basically what you've said is that genius can only apply to something where the majority of people hold the same opinion. You thus eliminate philosophical geniuses.


"Thank you for the spellcheck, but I know how to spell Dylan's name. When you type looonnnnngggggg post really fast, you tend to make errors.
I know disco was important, once again I was using sarcasm.
As for the 80's, I prefer the music of that decade much more to the 60's, however that's my personal opinion."

What from the eighties? If you list most of eighties music I will likely reply with "there is no possible way we could be friends". I despise most of the eighties music. It's completely meaningless, utterly pop-esque in it's progression and entirely void of talented writers for the most part.


"Hey I'm 25 and almost all of my friends dislike the Beatle's music. I'm not here to change people's musical taste, just for some to stop putting their genre as the only good one there was."

Then what are you trying to show? Not one single person have I ever heard say The Beatles (by the way, Beatles aren't a genre. So have you now changed from Beatles to all classic rock?) are the only good music. Most Beatles fans love Floyd, CCR, Stones, Zepplin, Hendrix...

There is very little good music out there. In fact, there's VERY little good music around today.

[Nancy_Lieder]

Tyler, my problem is when people say that Classic rock is the last real music, and that the Beatles created rock n roll. I have stated repeately that music is an artform, and as such, one man's trash is another's treasure. I give credit to the Beatles for rejuvenating rock, and have not disputed that they were influencial.

You may find music from the 80's and 90's as mindless and unimaginative, but I'm saying that there's good music today just like the past, and crappy music, just like the past.

It's the disrespect to the new generation of artists in the past few decades, and the elevation to mythical standards of those in the 60's, that pisses me off.

[Xev]

Welcome back Tyler. Who would have guessed you for a Beatles fan? ;)


Do you pray to an altar of John Lennon every night...

No, but there are rumours that he sacrifices chickens on occasion.

celinefanatic:

You can't put *Nsync down...they work hard for what they have accomplished. Alot of artists are compared to the Beatles because they did it first...I hate thier music but they were very successful. That's why they compare Celine Dion to them...she has now sold more albums then they did.

Dosen't matter how hard they work at being crap, they're still utter crap.


*Nsync has great sales stats too but they are compared because of being a band of guys. I prefer Celine over everyone!!!!

Ummm, okay. That's kinda like saying you prefer the rack over the wheel, but whatever floats your boat.

Some random person:

Thats right. Vh1 voted Revolver to be the #1 greatest abum ever made.

Ummm, that's idiotic. Everyone with any decent sense of taste knows it has to be NIN The Fragile.

(Logical arguments are for pussies)

Tyler:

The Stones? Can you show me some of their lyrical brilliance? Or meaningful songs?

Ummmm, Sympathy, Child of the Moon, 2000 Lightyears, 2000 Man, Factory Girl, You Got Me Rockin', I Go Wild, Satisfaction, Prodigal Son (Now how many bands can make a good song out of one of Jesus' parables?!!), Sister Morphine, She's a Rainbow, Moon is Up.......

Jesus fucking christ, each one is both lyrically brilliant and meaningfull and artistically brilliant.

[Tyler]

"No, but there are rumours that he sacrifices chickens on occasion."

Where do you think Nelson went.


"Ummm, that's idiotic. Everyone with any decent sense of taste knows it has to be NIN The Fragile"

As I recall that actually was on the list. But it was in the top 30, not top 10 or anything. Top ten was dominated by Beatles. Others in there were Nirvana, Dylan, Hendrix, Marvin Gaye (Marvin Gaye is rock?), Beach Boys and Stevie Wonder. The albums weren't based on which is actually the "greatest" in terms of personal preference for the most part (as, obviously, that is subjective) - but on which albums where the most influential, inovative and rocked the musical and cultural world. Revolver, by these terms, is DEFINETLY the number one. They put Nirvana as 2 and Beach Boys' Pet Sounds as 3, but I'm going to have to go with Tiassa on this one and say Pet Sounds was significantly more innovative than Nirvana; even if Nirvana did change the music world (as a note: according to my father the radio executive, Nirvana didn't truly rock the world until after Kurt's death).

"Ummmm, Sympathy, Child of the Moon, 2000 Lightyears, 2000 Man, Factory Girl, You Got Me Rockin', I Go Wild, Satisfaction, Prodigal Son (Now how many bands can make a good song out of one of Jesus' parables?!!), Sister Morphine, She's a Rainbow, Moon is Up....."

Great songs. Without a doubt. How is Satisfaction intelligent? "When I'm a walkin' down the street, I can't get no. I can't get no. I can't get no...." It's a fabulous song, but many of those you listed are far from intellectual lyrics. Great poetry and music? Without a doubt. Intelligent or philosophical (for the most part)? Don't think so.




"Tyler, my problem is when people say that Classic rock is the last real music, and that the Beatles created rock n roll. I have stated repeately that music is an artform, and as such, one man's trash is another's treasure. I give credit to the Beatles for rejuvenating rock, and have not disputed that they were influencial"

They were the single most influential band in history. I'm not going to say they were the most innovative; that probably belongs to some band 99% of people haven't heard of. But! The Beatles were by far and away the most innovative of their time and single most innovative band to be popular among the public. Like I said, no other band with the potential to make hundreds of millions through tours quit touring completely simply because they felt they could produce better music if they focused on composing and experimenting.


"You may find music from the 80's and 90's as mindless and unimaginative, but I'm saying that there's good music today just like the past, and crappy music, just like the past"

There's some good music from both decades. Early 90's produced a lot of good stuff (though, still not like late 60s early 70s in my opinion). What 80s stuff do you listen to? To be honest, I still listen to stuff like Billy Idol and Guns occasionally.


"It's the disrespect to the new generation of artists in the past few decades, and the elevation to mythical standards of those in the 60's, that pisses me off"

The 60s is a mythical time. The Beatles are a mythical band. For the love of god they held 3 of the top 5 spots on the billboard at one point!!!!! They set all the records for concerts (later broken, of course) and all the records for top singles and albums for bands (most of which they still hold) in Britain, America and World-wide. They fuckin' used indian music in rock and roll. Can you imagine being a rocker who just finished listening to Satisfaction and you put Revolver on for the first time and hear backwards guitars and indian music??? They used full orchestra. They performed live on television to the largest telivision audience in history at that time (obviously they don't still hold that record as there is significantly more tvs in the world now than there was in 68). They produced 10 albums in 6 years. Today we're lucky to see a decent band make 3 or 4 albums in that time - tops!

There are a number of bands who have become mythical; The Beatles, the Stones (though most bands would be hurt by still playing tours into their 50s, this doesn't seem to affect The Stones, Paul McCartney or Eric Clapton), Clapton, Hendrix, Dylan (god his voice sucks shit now though, he should quit). As the years move on more bands will reach this level. Groups like Rage Against the Machine will always be popular among a certain crowd. Backstreet will take on a New Kids on the Block feeling. Black Sabbath will become even more legendary, so will Led Zepplin and The Doors. It's a matter of time. It kind of goes in about a 30-40 year cycle. Frank Sinatra really didn't start being called a legend (or Dino or the rat pack) until well after the end of his prime.

There are few bands or artists who have been called future legends or gods or such during or immediatly after their career. The Beatles. The Stones when people began to realize they weren't about to retire. Clapton was called a guitar god when he started out. The point is, some of these guys are very mythical to us. I can't think of a guitarist who has revolutionized guitar like Hendrix did since him. Definetly can't think of a band like The Beatles who changed music so much, put out so much amazing music in such a short time and were so popular. The Stones were the anti-Beatles (clever ploy to never really let on they were good friends) and so everyone either LOVED the Beatles or LOVED The Stones.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by CelineFanatic2001US
Real artists don't need to write thier own songs to cover up the fact that they can't sing! Celine Dion doesn't need to write her own songs cause at the end of the day, her voice brings the money in. Not saying that she doesn't write songs...she co-wrote "Treat Her Like A Lady" in 1997 and on her upcoming french album, she writes a song with Jean-Jacques Goldman.

FYI: *Nsync DOES write songs!

FYI: Celine Dion isn't in the "elevator music" category. Buy one of her albums and you will find out that she is pop/rock. That's the category she is in at the record store too....not easy listening!


WTFH?!!? SLow down there.....You can take your 'Celine isnt elavtor music' crap and take it right back to the Celine forum you came from.

And even if Nsync wrote their own songs, would that make them any different? Whether they wrote them, or f*cking Bill Clinton wrote them, they're still worthess song. Plain and Simple.


--Thirty Seven

[CelineFanatic2001US]

I think you suck! You obviously have a very closed mind when it comes to music. I think you should go back to the asshole forums you came from! GO TO HELL!

[Xev]

"Where do you think Nelson went."

Actually, that would have been me. Cthulhu gets all ornery sometimes and can't be placated except by mixing the blood of a virgin with some nice Sonoma Red.

"As I recall that actually was on the list."

Good, I'll put down the gun, there's hope for humanity yet.

"Revolver, by these terms, is DEFINETLY the number one. They put Nirvana as 2 and Beach Boys' Pet Sounds as 3, but I'm going to have to go with Tiassa on this one and say Pet Sounds was significantly more innovative than Nirvana; even if Nirvana did change the music world (as a note: according to my father the radio executive, Nirvana didn't truly rock the world until after Kurt's death)."

Whatever, they're obviously idiots if it wasn't top ten. Thus their opinion is irrelevent.

"How is Satisfaction intelligent? "When I'm a walkin' down the street, I can't get no. I can't get no. I can't get no...." It's a fabulous song, but many of those you listed are far from intellectual lyrics. Great poetry and music? Without a doubt. Intelligent or philosophical (for the most part)? Don't think so."

So? "Imagine" has silly, Hallmark card worthy, purile lyrics, and it's one of the Beatles' best.

Intelligent and philosophical. Certainly more so than anything the Beatles produced.

Take 2000 Man. Did the Beatles ever cover wage slavery? No. Why? 'Cuz they are overrated, and the Stones rock.

I mean, name one song, ONE SONG of the Beatles that comes close to, say, She's a Rainbow.

[fadingCaptain]

Ahh Xev you need to be educated ;),


Good, I'll put down the gun, there's hope for humanity yet.
Th fragile isn't even NIN's best album! Trent never topped pretty hate machine...


So? "Imagine" has silly, Hallmark card worthy, purile lyrics, and it's one of the Beatles' best.
Lyrics that call for an end to religion and a new communitic worldwide utopian society are silly, hallmark worthy, and purile??? Next time you listen to the song, actually listen.


I mean, name one song, ONE SONG of the Beatles that comes close to, say, She's a Rainbow.
She's a rainbow is an awesome song. So is ruby tuesday, get off my cloud, and yeah quite a few others. But nothing they ever did touches songs like tomorrow never knows or penny lane.

Tyler,

(as a note: according to my father the radio executive, Nirvana didn't truly rock the world until after Kurt's death).
Hmmm. Not true. I was in high school when 'nevermind' came out. It changed everything for everyone that listened to rock.

[Tyler]

"Whatever, they're obviously idiots if it wasn't top ten. Thus their opinion is irrelevent."

Hardly. The guys at VH1 didn't go for the albums they personally thought were best. Or the albums that people with good taste found best. They picked the ones that changed music and revolutionized the industry. NIN has been a very influential band, but only to a certain (though, large) sect.

1) Revolver. I already went on about this.
2) Nevermind. Nirvana was the changing point of rock and roll in the 90s.
3) Pet Sounds. Just ask Tiassa to go on a Tyler-on-Beatles-esque rant about this album. Absolutely brilliant musically, this album changed pop.
4) What's Going On. An ablum about politics it was the first soul/blues album to reach out to the black masses.
5) Are You Experienced? Come on. Do I need to explain why Jimmy is on the list?
6) Rubber Soul. The first step on The Beatles changing music forever.
7) Songs in the Key of Life. I don't agree with this choice. It made a career and was hugely popular, but I don't beleived it 'rocked the world' as much as some other albums.
8) Abbey Road. Personal choice - this is the best Beatles album. Among fans this is generally regarded as the best album. But it was not nearly as influential or innovative as Revolver. Just listen to the second half of the album (preferentially on album, not cd) - brilliant.
9) Blonde on Blonde. Hugely ambitious album that opened America up to a brand new type of music.
10) Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. This should be higher. Maybe switch this with Abbey because Sgt. Pepper's was a song of war. It was war between peace and war. It was war between the youth of America (Time magazine's "Person of the Year" in 1967 was "American public under 25"....in 1969 it was "Middle Aged America") and their parents. And this album was their banner, flag and anthem.

NIN are great musicians. But in no way have their albums had the effect these ten did.


"So? "Imagine" has silly, Hallmark card worthy, purile lyrics, and it's one of the Beatles' best."

One mistake in debating me about The Beatles is in calling a non-Beatles song a Beatles song. This was from Lennon's solo stuff after The Beatles. The Yoko-inspired stuff. Still, you are correct in saying it's regarded as a great song. Why? It is musically perfect. It is a beautiful song, you must admitt. The lyrics?

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Yes, very hallmark-esque at parts. However, at the time this was written, it was very odd to see. It is a beautiful poem and the message, while common, is great. Parts of the poem are very odd to see in a popular song from that era; god brings about trouble, having national pride brings about war. Not exactly ideas that were commonly found in America/Britain at the time.


"Take 2000 Man. Did the Beatles ever cover wage slavery?"

Yes. I listed this in a debate we had in the NIN thread. George's songs Taxman and fuck, one other I can't remember...ahhhhhh.....Think For Yourself! Oh, and Lennon's Working Class Hero.

Did The Stones ever do a song about the Tibetan Book of the Dead? Or just a ton of songs about Christianity?


"I mean, name one song, ONE SONG of the Beatles that comes close to, say, She's a Rainbow"

Are you joking? The lyrics to that aren't exactly intelligent. Or original. Pretty song, but it's nothing deep. I can't believe you would pick that as a song to represent The Stones. Hardly, in my view, one of their most brilliant songs. In my opinion Sympathy is by far their coolest song. And Can't Always Get What You Want.


fading,

"Hmmm. Not true. I was in high school when 'nevermind' came out. It changed everything for everyone that listened to rock."

Really? Cool.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by CelineFanatic2001US
I think you suck! You obviously have a very closed mind when it comes to music. I think you should go back to the asshole forums you came from! GO TO HELL!


lol. Just know everyone is laughing. Hysterically. Acting this immature is just scary on these forums.

And no, I do not have a closed mind in music, You're the one who listen to cheesy pop ballads. LoL. I listen to a wide variety of music: AC/DC, Guns 'N Roses, Michae Jackson, Motlëy Cruë, Madonna, U2, Prince, Beatles, Led Zeppelin....and on and on....

So I suggest you reconsider your act Celine, maybe get a new login name so people forget about your immaturity, or maybe take a stay in mexico for a week. To make a splash at sciforums you need an original name, and intellect on more than one thing (especially NOT pop music)