No. John Lennon, more than any person except maybe Elvis, ruined music for all time. Music is dead, and the Beatles killed it, and John Lennon was the worst of the lot. Music will never recover from his destruction.

Here's the simple why (there are doctoral theses that can be written about this):

Rant on-

Classical (orchestral) music was not yet dead in the 1950s. It was in decline, but it had been in decline before, and it could have been temporary. There were still great composers in the world. Maestros were celebrities. There were other legitimate outlets of music as well, including well developed strains of jazz, but I'm less expert about these.

Here I should make a quick pitch for orchestral music and the Western musical tradition. A lot of people think that all "classical" music sounds alike. It does not. Western music is like the Africa of music; just like there is more genetic diversity within one tribe in Africa than there is in two different tribes on different continents elsewhere in the world, there is more diversity and change within the greatest composer's canons that there is in any other genre. I will defend this technically if need be.

Anyway, The Beatles and their popularity was always more a sociological and demographic challenge to music than an outright challenge. The Beatles harmonic language is laughably simple compared to composers like Palestrina, who wrote in the 16th century, not to mention later composers, whose language grows exponentially more complex.

Liking the Beatles was an emotional statement, and more importantly an outgrowtn of youthful ignorance. It was a stance against "old" music. All generations have done this; the only difference is, every other generation has turned towards an even richer harmonic language. The Beatles were the first incredibly popular group to strip every novelty and complexity out of music and deem it important.

None of this would have been nearly so awful, except that the rise of the Beatles occurred alongside the last significant population surge in Western history. Taste is often a numbers game, and since the baby boomers formative years were spent idolizing the Beatles, we're doomed to a world where the Beatles are actually important. Other musical markets have dried up, and orchestral music, much like modern art, turned down a series of blind alleys, no longer finding it possible to compete with pop music.

One of the greatest heritages of Western society is the music it created. There is great literature all throughout the world and in almost all ages, but Western music is something special. No other society has learned how to so effectively manipulate tone and established a refined theoretical framework for understanding tone. But that's all lost. No longer is chord structure or progression important; now, people listen for lyrics (which is poetry, at best) or melody (which is the simplest aspect of music unless you're really original or good at it, which almost no one is consistently.) It's as though no one remembers how to read or write, and people debate what books are best by determining which burn the brightest. That's the state of modern music, and John Lennon is more responsible than any other person. I will never forgive him.

Rant off.

I like the movies in this order:

1.) Pulp Fiction

2.) Forest Gump

3.) Shawshank Redemption

No, but I can read a chord. I know the rules of counterpoint. I know what "minor" means. Etc, etc. If it counds harsh to say that people don't know these things are musically illiterate, well, I don't know what to say. Is there a less harsh word for "not able to read and understand music"?

Anyone else can go and state their opinion. Go crazy. No one is going to agree with me anyway, and I don't particularly mind. But it's like me having an argument with you about a book I haven't read- or even better, having an argument with someone who doesn't know how to read. If you don't know the building blocks of music, then what are we supposed to base our opinions on music around, exactly? And if you do, then come at me with that. Music is art, and art is an intellectual endeavor (the anti-intellectualism of all discussions of music is partly the result of the Beatles as well.)

And if any of this offends you or anyone else, and you fancy yourself a big music person, do yourself a favor: buy an introductory music theory book. Learn something about the rich harmonic language of music that hasn't been created in the last 50 years.

I dont think Hillary or Obama will get the nomination by the DNC. This could get ugly.

I don't like white rappers.

Do you really think the Al Gore as a darkhorse rumor could come true?

Al Gore really thinks that global warming is a big problem but he may not be right.

I agree with you there Boilermaker Rick. That defense was playing like a top-five defense once Harris was fully healthy. Urlacher was playing better as the year went on. And I still think Vasher is the best player in the secondary. They were still good, but they'll be back to dominant next year. We all know the offensive problems, but regression to the mean, right?

i'm replying to what irish boy said to me here...



No one's going to agree with you because you're going about this the entire wrong way. Pop music has been around far longer than "classical music"--there are celtic anthems that go back to the 6th and 7th centuries, even before that. And by pop music I mean POPULAR music, music that is accepted by the mainstream public.

A pissing contest won't be started here. This business of "I can read a chord, can you?" is just childish. I have written music. I have professionally played music in front of audiences. I learned by ear. I can't read music but I can understand it. Music isn't about reading as much as it's about feeling. Hell Mozart was "writing" music before he knew how to write at all. Beethoven couldn't even hear his own music. But I guarantee you he could feel it.

I personally love classical music--I love just about all music because there's an understanding that I have of it, and a personal connection that I have with it. It has nothing to do with education, as far as what books will tell you or what not. The best way to understand music is to LISTEN to it, and to FEEL it.

Blaming the Beatles? That's absurd.

It depends greatly on the draft. "Imagine" a draft where they get a solid RB, WR, and OL in the first three rounds and a QB of the future. That would be quite a "revolution" of the offense and I think the entire team could really "come together".

Affirmative Action is a bullshit, racist policy though.

I don't like white rappers.

well who the fuck is going to read a music debate in the movies section

goddamnit.

where's my FUH-KING GUY STINK WHEN YOU NEED HIM

I don't like white rappers.

It depends greatly on the draft. "Imagine" a draft where they get a solid RB, WR, and OL in the first three rounds and a QB of the future. That would be quite a "revolution" of the offense and I think the entire team could really "come together".

You're just trying to get under my skin, asshole.

From what I remember from the few music classes I took, the Beatles were considered more influential for experimenting and evolving studio recordings and sound effects. I would have to do a bit of research to get what the effects were and who/how they impacted future music

You wanna brawl at the CSFMB fight night?

In the end, it's going to come down to whatever you like. Most aesthetic arguments do. But my problem is that people who cannot speak in musical language cannot justify what they like. It's all generalities; it sounds cool, it makes me feel good, it was original, whatever. We'd never talk about anything else that way. We quote books. We look at the use of light or shadow or whatever for paintings. Only for music do we say anything like "it sounds cool." If nothing else it's worthwhile to learn the musical language so that you can both justify your opinions and so that you can duplicate, or expand upon, anything worthwhile that might be there.

That's not a bad point. They were original in a very superficial way. They did a lot of things for the first time that had very little to do with music as its properly understood.

We'd never talk about anything else that way. We quote books. We look at the use of light or shadow or whatever for paintings. Only for music do we say anything like "it sounds cool."

Beethoven knew how to complete a cadence. You almost proved my point: Beethoven didn't even need to listen to the music because he had such an advanced understanding of the musical language. Your point about popular music and ethnic music isn't incompatible with mine because my claim is for a very specific type strain in musical history. The Ancient Greeks had music and it probably sucked equally with the Beatles. I don't particularly care.

I definitley prefer the Yankees to the Red Sox. Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Jeter are way better than anyone the Sawks can bring.

Ok but your argument was that the Beatles, or more specifically, John Lennon, ruined music. If music "sucked" since the Ancient Greeks, how did the Beatles ruin it?

It's not like "classical music" was considered classical back then, it was popular music.