Poll : GTP Music Cool Wall - The BeatlesMusic
- Thread starter astrosdude91
- 64 comments
- 4,059 views
- 17,166
- United Kingdom
Its the only option!
grrlpurple
G8R_MaD3
ivoyared
N99GT
MatskiMonk
Prosthetic
Be carefull! Mods are on you now! At least 10 points infraction should be in order
!
Lol, I'll stand by my decision... I've been persecuted before, like when I didn't jump on the 90's Britpop bandwagon
if you didn't like Oasis you were 'ill'. 
I got my AC/DC and it keeps me happy Admittedly I'm no expert on Pink Floyd, and I prefer the later stuff anyway.. but I don't see the influence particularly?
- 24,619
- Anoka, MN
MagpieRacer
Premium
- 17,352
- Wymondham, Norfolk
- Seagull_Racer
They are The Beatles. Its automatic HoF entry right there.
- 17,166
- United Kingdom
See this is the kind of attitude I don't get.... I haven't really seen anyone explain why 'what they did' was so important. Music was evolving at that time anyway, they may have bought a focus to the British music scene but alot of music coming out at this time from both the UK and the US sounds pretty similar to me.
If commerical success is the reason, I can't argue with that, so long as we're applying the same rules to all nominations.
- 6,131
- London
- SomaEightyFour
- MrVerloc
They utilised several recording techniques in their records that are now commonplace in music today. Plus their music was just so far ahead of their contemporaries at the time, for example the drumming on Tomorrow Never Knows could be dropped into any Chemical Brothers track from the 90's and fit perfectly. Hell, Sgt. Peppers was so brilliant that Brian Wilson just gave up trying to finish Smile.
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
Because it goes without saying. Arguing the Beatles HoF entry is like trying to argue Formula One cars are slow, weighing 500lbs isn't fat, desert isn't dry, ice cream doesn't taste good, etc, etc.
Sure you can argue all you want, but the supporting evidence is more than overwhelmingly against you. Yeah, F1 cars are slow compared to speed of the light, 500lbs isn't that much if you are 15ft tall, etc., etc., but in the end, you have missed the point by a mile, with the point being the Hall of Fame.
When so many reputable musicians credit the band for influencing them.... When the band has billion or more fans.... When they are arguably the best selling artist of all-time.... and remember, these are the facts that can not be denied. I am not even getting into the contribution they have made to rock music, or things they pioneered. Just the numbers. They alone make the Beatles an automatic entry to the Hall of Fame.
As many here already noted, if you don't like them, that is fine. As far as I'm concerned, that is PERFECTLY fine. But if you can't recognize how the Beatles qualify for the Hall of Fame? I'm going to have to repeat myself from my earlier post, that you should get educated, or quit while you are behind. I do not mean any offense, and I mean that(pun intended
). But you either don't have the facts, or you dislike the band so much that you are simply not able to give credit where it's due.
- 17,166
- United Kingdom
And as I said in an earlier post if commercial success was the only qualifier then okay... I am looking forward to Abba, Celine Dion and Mariah Carey being automatic HoFers too..
.. its the pioneering things and their contribution to rock music that I don't get, I'm not a fan of their music, I've never bothered finding out about it, I'm not a music historian, and I have no sources to hand to do with other bands quoted influences... - and I wonder how many people actually do know themselves, nobody (with the exception of F1 GTR) has even tried to really explain.
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
They way they marketed and had millions of different merchandise was pretty revolutionary in the pop department. Thats what makes them so great.
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
And is this the only qualifier I mentioned? Admittedly, it was a long post. But in the same paragraph, did I not note two more "qualifier"? And one of those that was ignored in your post was what can only be described as the largest fan base a band have ever accumulated.
So you admit here that you don't know. And you will not research. But you will argue against it.
In my previous post, I mentioned about how you are missing the point on this entire hall of fame thing. By admitting that you know nothing about it. By admitting that you will argue, but will not research, you are kind of on your own, aren't you?
Because you don't care for the band, or the music, I stuck with the facts. Now I think you might be baiting me to spend couple of hours on posting all the recorded quotes, writings, history so I can spoon feed some explanation to you?
Do me a favor, do what rest of us all do. If you really are a fan of music, you owe it to yourself to do some research. If you can't accept that billions enjoyed Beatles songs, but in your opinion, they are equivalent of Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, or ABBA, there is nothing I can say that will change your obscure view. Prosthetic I think called them a boyband earlier?(sorry if I got the wrong person) He just commented that what made them great was their marketing & merchandising. Yeah, sure. But that is some seriously oversized blinders to have on.
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
Because that's kind of what they were. Sure they are actually playing instruments and they actually write there own music. But at the time you The Beatles fan base were young girls that thought they were cute, they wrote catchy easy to follow songs. What more could a 13 year old girl want?
Granted over the years the fan base has grown and diversified but that happens to every band/genre.
I actually heavily enjoyed Across the Universe and I thought it was a magnificent movie. But out side of a few songs, I find The Beatles relativity boring and I would hate to use the term but heavily overrated. In the same way Led Zeppelin is overrated. (Not saying they suck, because I love me some Zepp)
To me, The Beatles musically weren't so tragically different from everything else out there at the time so "Zomg greatest band everzomg" is abit overboard. When I think truly bind boggling great and influential I think Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, The Who... (God dammit England). Those are the top tier bands I think deserve the top spot. That spot people always seem to put the Beatles.
Now about voting... After voting in just about everyone and reading everyone's reasoning. Its been more or less "I don't like this band therefor they can't possibly be HoF" "This genre sucks" on bands that without a doubt deserve a HoF mention (Iron Maiden.)
As there is an option for "I don't like this band" because well, I don't particularly like the Beatles. I voted for that. And seriously, if you guys don't like that why the 🤬 are you on a forum?
I've talked to my father on many occasions (a past musician) about this subject. He has similar views as I do even though we have pretty different taste in music he has the same feeling that The Beatles were just another rock band to him at the time.
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
And back to the very beginning again. There is Hall of Fame selection, and then there is actually enjoying their work.
I give you credit for admitting that you don't care for them, but you understand that they deserve to be in HoF. What I have problem with is that you just focus on the negative by giving them credit for things that are irrelevant musically, dismiss where credit is due, and put down their work because you didn't like them. Not many bands have so many songs that are considered classic. We are not talking 10 or 20 hits here. It's true that girls liked them. It's true the fans were generally very young. It didn't stop the million rock stars & HoF artists from playing their music, but your focus is on how the songs were for little girls.
I maintain that if you don't like them, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just don't discount the fact that billion other people, other musicians(some of them legends in their own right) enjoy or have enjoyed their music. Yes, you could say they were overrated. But depending on your point of view, you could say that about anybody and anything.
- 23,800
- Philippines
"Across the Universe" was a nice movie... and some of the reimaginings of Beatles songs were very good. But it barely scratched the surface of the Beatles' song book.
The Beatles were just a band... but they had a profound influence on everything that came after. I wouldn't say they were the absolute, most brilliant musicians in a technical sense, but the songwriting and composing sensiblities of the Beatles really transcended their genre.
They started out as a rock band, but few rock bands really grew in such a complicated way before the Beatles... Take two songs from two different albums just five years apart and they may sound like they're from completely different planets. There might be others with more musicality, a harder edge or who were more progressive on one front, but none with so wide a repertoire.
I may be biased, as a fan... but I started my Beatles' fascination quite late. Never was a big fan of the Beatles classics that were always played on the radio... but when I got deeper into the experimental stuff that came later on, I realized how much more there was to it than that. And learning to play those songs... you start to realize how much goes into making such simple-sounding ballads as "Yesterday"...
The Beatles were just a band... but they had a profound influence on everything that came after. I wouldn't say they were the absolute, most brilliant musicians in a technical sense, but the songwriting and composing sensiblities of the Beatles really transcended their genre.
They started out as a rock band, but few rock bands really grew in such a complicated way before the Beatles... Take two songs from two different albums just five years apart and they may sound like they're from completely different planets. There might be others with more musicality, a harder edge or who were more progressive on one front, but none with so wide a repertoire.
I may be biased, as a fan... but I started my Beatles' fascination quite late. Never was a big fan of the Beatles classics that were always played on the radio... but when I got deeper into the experimental stuff that came later on, I realized how much more there was to it than that. And learning to play those songs... you start to realize how much goes into making such simple-sounding ballads as "Yesterday"...
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
I hate using the term because ironically its overrated
As with the billion other people.. I honestly don't care if I'm the only person in the world that doesn't like them. Nothing anyone could ever say/do could really change taste in music. If every band I listen to says "The sole purpose we are here is because of the Beatles." I still wouldn't like them. Now there are a few songs here and there that I like but personally think atmosphere is the best asset a song could have. I think that's where the Beatles lack a bit. Maybe my outlook on them would changed if I listened them with a broken heart.
The amount of different sounds a band has doesn't change my view on them. Its not a bad or good things because I can list a billion examples of good and bad cases. Bands that can reinvent themselves with the same sound and continue to write good music that sounds similar enough to love but different enough to be new. Those are hard to come by and I have a tremendous amount of respect for those that successfully do that.
Simplicity or complexity doesn't change anything for me. I freaking love Monster Magnet and they keep things simply in fact its pretty basic rock yet I haven't listened to a band that sounds anything like them.
In the end I like what my taste tell me I like... The Beatles just don't do it for me.
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
I hate using the term because ironically its overrated
Fair enough.
And no one would have problem with that. Remember, all that Beatles being the most widely accepted argument, I was just making a point. This is the HoF argument, not the best band ever(everyone knows that would be the Wings).
- 17,166
- United Kingdom
Yep, and I have not disputed the size of their fan base, although I think this is very difficult to quantify... I could say AC/DC had a fan base of 2 Billion... but it doesn't make it so - it's very difficult to prove either way... so that's why I ignored that.
No. Read my posts... I voted 'I do not like them'.. that makes my position clear... what I am trying to establish is WHY they seem to get this free pass to greatness.. I have not said "they are not", just "why are they?"
Because you don't care for the band, or the music, I stuck with the facts. Now I think you might be baiting me to spend couple of hours on posting all the recorded quotes, writings, history so I can spoon feed some explanation to you?
Not at all.. I am not fussed if my mind is not changed.. I'm not all of a sudden going to start liking their music just because I found out they did something wonderful. I think it's my right that, if I am expected to accept that they are this amazing wonderful pioneering band, to ask why?
Not in my opinion, I don't like any of them either... but you say numbers alone are enough to get an artist in the HoF... well Celine, Mariah and ABBA have all sold considerably more records than some of the HoFers we've already had, therefore they must automatically be granted the top slot too?
I'm really not try to troll, but in light of..
with explanations like...
I don't think it's out of order to question what we are told that we must believe, especially considering such epically well thought arguments.
Possibly I am questioning it more than I should, but I hate people that go along with the crowd saying somethings amazing, like they are an expert, when they actually have no real opinion of their own.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
Check out some of the Rolling Stone's lists of Top 500 songs, etc, you'll find the Beatles popping up a lot. Or consult some of Joel Whitburn's statistics.
Just because someone personally doesn't care for an artist's work doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be HOFers. I have voted for two artists so far whose music I personally don't much care for but whose influence on pop music was undeniable, and I don't believe I'm alone on that.
Just because someone personally doesn't care for an artist's work doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be HOFers. I have voted for two artists so far whose music I personally don't much care for but whose influence on pop music was undeniable, and I don't believe I'm alone on that.
- 29,272
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
A 'free pass to greatness'? What!?
If you don't know why The Beatles are regarded so highly by so many critics, journalists, and an entire generation of fellow musicians etc. then you could probably do with reading up on them a bit... (here's a good place to start). Like Elvis, The Beatles were a cultural phenomenon as well as great performers/recording artists - although, unlike Elvis, they were also prolific songwriters who went from being a mega-popular pop group (not unlike the boy bands of today) to being right at the cutting edge of creativity (very unlike the boy bands of today), whose influence is still felt to this day. I personally think their albums reflect their talents better than any tome ever written on The Beatles, but their cultural impact is - without a doubt - as significant as any band or musician in the 20th century. It is impossible to deny this if you know anything about 20th century culture or music...
Some other points to consider... The Beatles were producing records for just 8 years, and yet they produced 11 studio albums, 4 films, 2 albums that were soundtracks to their films, and some 275 songs, of which there are too many classics to mention. John Lennon was only 29 years old when the Beatles split up, George Harrison a mere 26 years old when they made their final performance as a band. 'Yesterday' (written by Paul McCartney) was covered or performed by other artists several million times since it was released in 1965, and other The Beatles' songs are among the most covered in music history too. Artists who have covered Beatles songs include The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Elvis, Elton John, Johnny Cash, Joe Cocker, Michael Jackson, U2, Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin, Alice Cooper, James Taylor, Ike & Tina Turner, The Bee Gees, Yes, Sparks (my personal favourite cover version!), Otis Redding, Wilson Pickett and Phil Collins (possibly the worst cover version I have), to name but a few...
A 'free pass to greatness'? My arse.
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
But you are disputing. A "billion" was the conservative number, considering they started out in very early 1960's. It is so, unless you are talking about the exact number of the current fan base.
Here is the exact excerpt from your very own post:
----------------------------------------------------------------
I think I just discovered another hurdle, on top of the fact that you are not very well informed about the band. What is this "greatness" that you are referring to? I guess you can call it whatever you want in your own mind, but we are talking about the "Hall of Fame". On top of not being familiar with the band, if you are also not familiar with the HoF, that is a problem.
We are discussing Hall of Fame, which does not equal one of the best bands ever. Which is why I've suggested on couple of occasions that you seem to be missing the point. Chances are, if you leave big enough mark or two in the history of rock, you will at least be considered for the HoF. Again, this isn't "best ever" anything. And doesn't have to be the first ever, most respected, etc., although they'd help.
I have went out of my way to make it clear that I will not baited into this discussion, because this is going to be a huge waste of time for both of us. You will not agree with anything I say, but you want me to convince you? I wasn't born yesterday you know?
Again, I have presented more than enough explanation why the Beatles are automatic in. Like I said, I think you misunderstand what Hall of Fame is. Let's say that they were a boyband. They were the most successful, arguably the most influential band ever. The end.
If the Hall of Fame was based on the top sales record, sure. It's not.
That is a fair point, sometimes a valid one. Do you remember me telling you that you are missing the point? The Beatles being one of the most notable band of all-time is one of the most obvious facts in music, pop culture or history.
You may dislike their music. You may discount the largest ever record sales figure. You may disagree with those in the industry, from the artists, producers, critics, etc., who appreciated the works by the Beatles. Problem is, you are in the microscopic minority.
Once you understand what Hall of Fame stands for, everything should fall in place. Of all the people who voted for the Beatles, I'm sure there were plenty who didn't particularly care for them, but merely recognized them.
- 5,230
- Buckeye Nation
Nice explanation TM.
MatskiMonk - While no one here is bashing your thoughts about the Beatles,I find it a little unfair that you can say this -
These are our own opinions,just like yours for saying you do not like the Beatles.While I personally value your opinion,I would not come in here and try to ram the Beatles down your throat saying something like - you have no taste in music or anything of the nature.Your entitled to your opinion as we are ours.So please do not rip us because we think like what TM has just posted.
Just for added measure for the sake of conversation.......
During other various band interviews,how many times has the Beatles name been brought up as a major influence to the artist giving an interview ? Quite a few actually.Which will lead me to say this (IMHO),the Beatles are probably one of the most influential and covered bands of all time.
MatskiMonk - While no one here is bashing your thoughts about the Beatles,I find it a little unfair that you can say this -
These are our own opinions,just like yours for saying you do not like the Beatles.While I personally value your opinion,I would not come in here and try to ram the Beatles down your throat saying something like - you have no taste in music or anything of the nature.Your entitled to your opinion as we are ours.So please do not rip us because we think like what TM has just posted.
Just for added measure for the sake of conversation.......
During other various band interviews,how many times has the Beatles name been brought up as a major influence to the artist giving an interview ? Quite a few actually.Which will lead me to say this (IMHO),the Beatles are probably one of the most influential and covered bands of all time.
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
Black Sabbath.
They made a completely new genre and every moderately hard rock and metal band in the past 40 years owes everything to them. Most of there song and album titles ended up being metal band names.
Oh, they also had the most iconic riffs ever.
But that's just me biased.
EDIT: I guess I jumped the gun too fast I didn't see "one of" Oh well.
- 4,579
- Houston, TX
- astrosdude91
You know, i've actually heard alot of music critics and industry people cite "Ticket to Ride" as the first ever metal song.
Just food for thought. I'm not joining the debate or anything
Just food for thought. I'm not joining the debate or anything
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
Then they know absolutely nothing about the genre. There is nothing metallic about it. Black Sabbath - Black Sabbath is the original IMO.. The only other things that come close are Summertime Blues by Blue Cheer or Inna Gadda Da Vidda by Iron Butterfly.
I could think of heavier Beatles tunes... Revolution being the first one that comes to mine. Coincidentally is one of the few Beatles tunes that I actually enjoy.
But this is off-topic.
Similar threads
