IB don't be an ass.

You have no more right than anyone else to state your opinion on music; or are you a professor of such?

I wasn't aware there was a mainstream rebellion against John Lennon or the Beatles, but if it does exist, it's because a bunch of snot-nosed, guitar in their parent's basement, "let's hope we can make it to second base tonight" 15 year olds who hate the Beatles for all the wrong reasons. They're not helping music any.

But the job is done; there's no music left to kill. It's already dead. At the very least, the Beatles were music- tone, melody, harmony. Half the shit today doesn't even qualify as music, not even bad stuff.

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.

Your take on music is paradoxically sad and amusing. You think difficulty = better? Thats absurd. I could talk to you about chord progressions, but I dont know what difference that would make. Classical music is definitely more complicated, and infinitely more boring. So by your logic, is Yngwie Malmsteen the best guitarest ever, better than Jimi because he can play faster?

Also your dismissal of lyrics in music also leads me to not take you seriously on this subject. Lyrics are a very important part of great songs, and they are not "poetry, at best". It is poetry.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Another failed analogy IB. Reading a book and listening to a song are completely different animals. Anyone can listen to a song and form an opinion on it. Not everyone can read a book.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

John Lennon sucked at Guitar Hero.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

all right enough...take this outside...i created a thread specifically for this...go here to continue this:

http://score670.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=20215

And poetry is not music.

Also, difficult does not equal better. But music is, practically by definition, the expression of emotion with sound, just like literature is the expression of emotions with words. Now imagine a book with only simple sentences and monosyllabic words. Chances are it isn't going to produce the fullest possible range of emotions. It's naturally limiting. Now imagine a book full of grunting and random letters. That's music after the Beatles, for the most part.

If you wanted to express something musically, you'd want at your disposal all the possible forms of sound, correct? Great composers are constantly looking for new ways to express themselves. The Beatles turned back the clock and decided to write in a harmonic language no more developed than the musical language of centuries before.

Pushkin wrote a poem about barbarians scribbling on a great portrait, attempting to recreate their own art after the civilization which created the piece has been destroyed. None among them is remotely capable, both in a tecnhical and in an emotional sense. That strikes me as an apt anology of music today.

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.

I believe that over the past thirty years, bands have moved away from trying to learn the theory behind the music and instead just play whatever sounds good to them. Or, they essentially steal whatever is going on at the time and change it slightly. Its simple, yes. But I think it may also be a general trend towards the arts. Can you name the last great artist? Dali? Now people think that a bucket of urine with a cross in it is art. But it's simple. And that's what people seem to like now. They like simple music with a simple riff. I can't say I didn't partially blame the Beatles for this.

_________________

Your point is not being made because you are going to extremes to diminish the Beatles music. It is not the equivalent of writing simple sentences with monosyllabic words, although I have already granted that its not as complex as classical music, but I dont listen to music for complexity.



Yes, but it often combines with music to make beautiful songs.


This is actually one argument I am not gonna continuously engage in, because you have your opinion, I have mine, they are not even remotely close and there is absolutely no way we will even influence eachother's opinions, let alone change their mind.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Kiss my black ass.

jesus christ, can't i ever get to kiss a white ass?

Why would an opponent need to get into the music? Your argument seems to be that the Beatles produced simple music that became popular and people chose to listen to this music to the exclusion of other types of music. However John Lennon never advocated exclusively listening to pop music. So why should the fault lie with the Beatles/Lennon.

I am an admitted music illiterate but I expected something more persuasive from you when you took such a controversial position.

Songs do not have to be complicated to be popular or sound good. There have been dozens of bands that have made a very nice living off of the 3 or 4 chord song.

_________________

You can kiss mine if you want to...

_________________
Seriously?

Was my reference lost on both of you or am I being thick?

GD, they don't know diddley.

_________________

_________________
Seriously?

Brian Cox once told reporters to kiss his black ass. That's what GD was referring to when he said it.

_________________
Kid Cairo's Boers & Bernstein YouTube Channel

Kid Cairo: 2013 March Madness Tournament Winner!

"Cowabunga? Cowa fucking piece of dog shit! This game is diarrhea coming out of my dick!"

You're always so helpful, Kid.

Thanks!

_________________
Seriously?

All I keep hearing is that popularity = good music. The more you like it, the better it is. Fine then. Tall Midget got into this argument with Beardown on a different topic, and he raised some analogies. McDonalds is the best restaurant in America. Britney Spears is one of the greatest musicians that ever lived.

If you don't think that's true, why not? You need to go beyond "well, I like it more." You will never be able to justify anything as being bad beyond saying that you don't like it. If you have some other system, tell me. If there is no other system besides from that, never again should any band, movie, recipe, book, or any other artistic endeavor ever be deemed bad. The logic of the position dictates that.

DUDE

Then you dont read all that well.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Then lay it out. What is good music. What makes good music. Explain it. Do it in a way that it can't be directly equated with what you like, i.e. "It's good because I like it."

Looking back at all the posts, I haven't seen a single defense of the Beatles apart from this "I like it" defense. If that's the only defense, then popularity equals quality, because you have no way of arguing whether something is better than another thing. If I like McDonalds more than an a prime steak, you have no way of arguing with me. If I like listening to a dial tone more than the radio, you have no way of arguing with me, because I can just say "well, I like it."

So I'm daft. What makes John Lennon good?

The listener's ear. Its really that simple. You are trying to complicate it unnecessarily. Has nothing to do with popularity.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Then never again can you claim that anything is bad, because all would I have to retort with is that someone likes it, so it's good to them, therefore it's good. There's no reason to review albums, or movies, or books. If you like it, it's good. There's no way to compare the quality of one thing to another.

That's an unsatisfatory conclusion.

yeah you got me there good dolphin; had no idea he said that. i apologi...

to you AND ryno's wife...

What they did was revolutionize rock and roll, and that's pretty obvious. They took the simple chord progressions that were created in the 50's and added bridges, and changed up the progressions, creating that verse/chorus/verse progression that is embedded in what we know as "rock" now. Instead of everything going C G F, they'd change it up to A sharp, D major, etc. The depth of their lyrics, that "pop music" or "pop rock", was no longer just about bubble gum and bobby's girl. They sang about something. I still get chills listening to "She's Leaving Home". They also used instruments that hadn't been previously used in that style of music before--like the sitar. They used looping, sound effects, and integrated different styles of music into what they did. There are a few different genres displayed in "Sgt. Pepper's" which is why it's considered one of the greatest albums of all time. And THAT was a response to "Pet Sounds", which also experimented with new instruments and progressions.
And it's one of my favorite albums as well.

Whether that has anything to do with what classical did, I doubt it--we're talking about completely different eras. The era in which the Beatles revolutionized music was when rock and roll was becoming more and more popular, and they not only joined in it, they changed it.

The shame is that it's been so overplayed by radio stations that it's considered "elevator music" and I'll even admit there are songs, especially from their earlier stuff, that I just flat out cannot listen to anymore.

Probably won't change your narrow view of them, but I figured I'd at least take a shot.

Fine W_Z, I can argue, but at least that is something that could be argued against.

well as i said, i figured i'd give it a shot.