Sinewave

5y

Of course they were influential and had a big impact on music. But was that influence a positive thing? The Beatles most certainly belong to the history of the 60s, but their musical merits are at best dubious.

In addition to the criticism of their music I outline in my post above, The Beatles came at the height of the reaction against rock and roll, when the innocuous "teen idols", rigorously white, were replacing the wild black rockers who had shocked the radio stations and the conscience of half of America. Their arrival represented a lifesaver for a white middle class terrorized by the idea that within rock and roll lay a true revolution of customs. The Beatles tranquilized that vast section of the population and conquered the hearts of all those (first and foremost the females) who wanted to rebel, without violating the social status quo. The contorted and lascivious faces of the black rock and rollers were substituted by the innocent smiles of the Beatles; the unleashed rhythms of the first were substituted by the catchy tunes of the latter. Rock and roll could finally be included in the pop charts. The Beatles represented the quintessential reaction to a musical revolution in the making, and for a few years they managed to run its enthusiasm into the ground.

Furthermore, the Beatles represented the reaction against a social and political revolution. They arrived at the time of the student protests, of Bob Dylan, of the Hippies, and they replaced the image of angry kids, fists in the air, with their cordial faces and amiable declarations. They came to replace the accusatory words of militant musicians with overindulgent nursery rhymes. Thus the Beatles served as middle-class tranquilizers, as if to prove the new generation was not made up exclusively of rebels, misfits and s***maniacs.

Yung_Nos

5y

woah dude this is lowkey eye opening. I know that of course they were influential and had a big impact on music. But was that influence a positive thing? The Beatles most certainly belong to the history of the 60s, but their musical merits are at best dubious.

In addition to the criticism of their music I outline in my post above, The Beatles came at the height of the reaction against rock and roll, when the innocuous "teen idols", rigorously white, were replacing the wild black rockers who had shocked the radio stations and the conscience of half of America. Their arrival represented a lifesaver for a white middle class terrorized by the idea that within rock and roll lay a true revolution of customs. The Beatles tranquilized that vast section of the population and conquered the hearts of all those (first and foremost the females) who wanted to rebel, without violating the social status quo. The contorted and lascivious faces of the black rock and rollers were substituted by the innocent smiles of the Beatles; the unleashed rhythms of the first were substituted by the catchy tunes of the latter. Rock and roll could finally be included in the pop charts. The Beatles represented the quintessential reaction to a musical revolution in the making, and for a few years they managed to run its enthusiasm into the ground.

Furthermore, the Beatles represented the reaction against a social and political revolution. They arrived at the time of the student protests, of Bob Dylan, of the Hippies, and they replaced the image of angry kids, fists in the air, with their cordial faces and amiable declarations. They came to replace the accusatory words of militant musicians with overindulgent nursery rhymes. Thus the Beatles served as middle-class tranquilizers, as if to prove the new generation was not made up exclusively of rebels, misfits and s***maniacs.

BRAVE

5y

The teachings of how to steal music well should be more popularized than the futile “exposals” of stolen music - which will never go away in any art form cause that’s kinda how inspiration works

If more aspiring artists could learn how to steal music well, that would be great tbh

Like a Camillimane

5y

chuck berry stole s*** too man, he took a 14 year old girl to his hotel and sexually assaulted her stripping her of her innocence

Nessy

5y

keep stealing as long as it sounds good!

mfp93

5y

John Lenon did the same awful s***, was he trying to be like Chuck ? All the women he would f*** up , smh

Like a Camillimane

5y

oh my love was always the best cut on imagine

Cam Skattebo Fan

5y

This is literally the entirety of music history.

Cam Skattebo Fan

5y

This is literally the entirety of music history.

Cam Skattebo Fan

5y

This is literally the entirety of music history.

rvi

5y

jealous guy >

Nessy

5y

yea and only the most successful act of each sound/genre is (overly) accused of stealing when everybody else at the time was doing the same thing

Cam Skattebo Fan

5y

Your issue here is thinking The Beatles need to be the poster boys of progressive rock music at the time. I really don't think anyone debates that. However The Beatles brought all those things to the FOREFRONT OF POP MUSIC. That is what separates them from the likes of Velvet Underground or Frank Zappa.

They had quite possibly the biggest platform of all time musically and chose to f*** around with their recording, musical processes. No one is denying that there more, and better artists at the time that were experimenting, but NONE OF THEM had the platform that The Beatles had. The Beatles could have stayed playing 4 chord pop songs for the entirety of their career because that's what made them famous. But they didn't. They chose to quit performing live to spend time experimenting in the studio because they knew they had the platform to change POP MUSIC and push it in boundaries that most people haven't. You think the average Help! fan was going around listening to Zappa? F*** no.

Like a Camillimane

5y

heard he was taking inspiration from elvis but what do i know

Cam Skattebo Fan

5y

Your issue here is thinking The Beatles need to be the poster boys of progressive rock music at the time. I really don't think anyone debates that. However The Beatles brought all those things to the FOREFRONT OF POP MUSIC. That is what separates them from the likes of Velvet Underground or Frank Zappa.

They had quite possibly the biggest platform of all time musically and chose to f*** around with their recording, musical processes. No one is denying that there more, and better artists at the time that were experimenting, but NONE OF THEM had the platform that The Beatles had. The Beatles could have stayed playing 4 chord pop songs for the entirety of their career because that's what made them famous. But they didn't. They chose to quit performing live to spend time experimenting in the studio because they knew they had the platform to change POP MUSIC and push it in boundaries that most people haven't. You think the average Help! fan was going around listening to Zappa? F*** no.

sniper

5y

· edited

now that everything has calmed down, the reason i was kinda bugging out is because a lot of times online, when beatles/rock threads are made, it always gives me this vibe of contempt towards other genres like they aren’t talented because they use samplers and synths and not playing the “more skilled” guitars

Sinewave

5y

Classic cop out by a Beatles stan. Beatles fans can change the meaning of the word "artistic" to suit themselves, but the truth is that the artistic value of the Beatles work is very low. The Beatles made only songs, often unpretentious songs, with melodies no more catchy than those of many other pop singers. The artistic value of those songs is the artistic value of one song: however well done (and one can argue over the number of songs well done vs. the number of overly publicized songs by the band of the moment), it remains a song, precisely as toothpaste remains toothpaste. It does not become a work of art just because it has been overly publicized.

The Beatles are justly judged for the beautiful melodies they have written. But those melodies were "beautiful" only when compared to the melodies of those who were not trying to write melodies; in other words to the musicians who were trying to rewrite the concept of popular music by implementing suites, jams and noise. Many contemporaries of Beethoven wrote better minuets than Beethoven ever wrote, but only because Beethoven was writing something else. In fact, he was trying to write music that went beyond the banality of minuets.

The melodies of the Beatles were perhaps inferior to many composers of pop music who still compete with the Beatles with regard to quality, those who were less famous and thus less played.

The songs of the Beatles were equipped with fairly vapid lyrics at a time when hordes of singer songwriters and bands were trying to say something intelligent. The Beatles' lyrics were tied to the tradition of pop music, while rock music found space, rightly or wrongly, for psychological narration, anti-establishment satire, political denunciation, d****, s***and death.

The most artistic and innovative aspect of the Beatles' music, in the end, proved to be George Martin's arrangements. Perhaps aware of the band's limitations, Martin used the studio and studio musicians in a creative fashion, at times venturing beyond the demands of tradition to embellish the songs.