I still believe music can be quantified. We just need to figure out how to approach it.

Let's take two songs. Tomorrow Never Knows by The Beatles, because it's a sore eye opener.

And Wolf Like Me by TV On The Radio.

Former is #187 here, latter is #501. While you're at it, ask your average music fan which one is better and they will say the former is slightly better.

But why?

Is the former really that great? More than a few gimmicky sound effects with a distorted vocal and looped drums? It's easy to do the math of its basic elements and get exactly what you have.

But now take Wolf Like Me. The production values are superior, and it's more of a song than "Tomorrow Never Knows" as well. It was written instead of improvised.

Also, have you noticed how much weight vocals have when you listen to a song? Without them, any backing track, even a very catchy one, is generic. Vocals add weight and stability to a song. At once, the song takes on their character and attributes.

I want us to better understand the way we understand music, and I think it's pretty clear we do it by some principles.

One of the most common principles is that of historical importance. Surely "Tomorrow Never Knows" is far superior here - in technical terms, it wasn't so groundbreaking, but it did come 40 years before "Wolf Like Me".

Quite obviously, "Wolf Like Me" can never make up for that, because it cannot travel back in time.

But is it fair to judge songs, or people, or anything - according to something they really have no control over? The members of TV On The Radio had not even been born yet in 1966.

Analyze the actual content of the songs, though, as opposed to their contexts, and "Wolf Like Me" really is a better song. Don't you agree? We might as well talk about it.

This context thing applies to all art. Imagine Milton having never existed, and coming around today to write Paradise Lost. It would be regarded as utter unimaginative crap. But, when you look at it in our reality where Milton existed long ago in the past, you start with a knowledge of its context that defines what appreciation you have of it. You adapt to the text. Whereas of the present you ask that it adapt to you.

What's your take on this?

Henrik, would you mind locking that one, too? Not that I want Maio or his opinion to be dismissed, but the usual furious answers coming soon to their theaters...

(((wolf like me/tomorrow never knows = honestly: on par, IMHO... nj))

Hey I promise to be nice. The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" its many of its musical concepts are alien to what their popular peers were doing at the time and forget pop music. The Chemical Brothers, Brian Eno, Beck and others have been influenced by this song.

Tomorrow Never Knows"
Simple verse form: a single eight-measure structure played nine times with no chorus. Even many of the Velvet Undergroud songs were mostly verse-chorus at this point.
Lyrics are from the Tibetan Book of the Dead—spiritual advice to those facing death
The adaptation of the text was from Timothy Leary's book The Psychedelic Experience
Accompanying music is a static Indian single harmonic drone
Additional sounds in the recording are made from tape loops
Tape loops were often used by 1950s and 1960s avant-garde classical music composers
The song was mixed in real time, rendering a repeat of the mix impossible (also an art approach)
The band is playing one chord.
The drum and bass are repetitive.

I really don't care so much about influence because influence is something you lock in stone because of the way things just happened to happen.

Like I've said before, in non-Beatles universes, other people would have been influenced by someone other than The Beatles. In a part of these, music as a whole would have been a bit worse. In another part, music would have been better.

But fine. Forget The Beatles. I didn't want this as a continuation of the locked thread at all.

I'll choose two different songs.

(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction by The Rolling Stones, which we all know is #2.

And Banquet by Bloc Party - which is just #904.

I'm pushing forward the notion that the latter is at least as good as the former - but that we're so used to the former being regarded as much better, i.e. we cannot avoid its reputation, that we can't figure out the truth.

And I know - your first reaction will be to disagree. But consider: when you judge Banquet's tunefulness, you judge it according to Satisfaction, instead of doing things the other way around, don't you?

Obviously the Milton occurence I stated earlier is omnipresent to art and creation. Try to disagree with your first impression of things so we can see how far we can get.

What's your take on this?

We speak different languages. "I Can't No Satisfaction" has one of most distinctive guitar riffs of all time. It's also one of my favorite songs ever. It's true the Yardbirds used the fuzzbox before the Stones and the Beatles were alreading using the looping guitar riff, but does it really matter hell no. The song is what matters. In music thats what matters. I think most rock artists would love to write a song like I Can't Get No Satisfaction. Music is a matter of taste what you deem is better others might disagree.

What I'm saying is this. Bypassing our innate logical principles is hard. Here's an exercise.

Imagine that Banquet was from 1965, and it was the #2 song.

Now imagine Satisfaction came out earlier this decade - with the de rigueur 2000's crisp sound, but with nothing else different.

How would you judge it then?

That is true, it is very hard to listen to music without considering the context. The originators of a movement always get more credit than they would have if they made the exact same music later on.

But, a component of any art is always the statement it makes. The more original a statement is, the stronger a statement it is. Tomorrow Never Knows is a song that calls on the listener to wholesale disregard conventional thought. Wolf Like Me is just a cool song about a werewolf.

get a life, miss chelsea. both of them suck...

I'm saying that our obsession for context, in disregard for content, is what causes all neglect of art.

That it would be better if we could somehow see everything for what everything in part actually is, instead for its retroactive historical novelty value.

And I think you can just as easily treat "Wolf Like Me" as a philosophically metaphorical song, and "Tomorrow Never Knows" as a cheesy song quoting a religious book. I am not asserting the former over the latter in this respect, however - but pointing out that they're at least on par if you apply the same principle to each. If you go looking for lyrical depth, you find it in both. If you go looking for lyrical silliness, again, it's in both.

Satisfaction seems to have a sort of almost sublime quality to those who love it.

When compared to it, Banquet will lose, because it does not have it.

If, however, Banquet had come out in 1965, it would be the one history would ascribe a sort of almost sublime quality to.

And Satisfaction coming out in 2005 would guarantee it the status of a ditty, because - divorced from context, reduced to mere content - it's just a repetitive riff.

Or consider this: Shakespeare not having existed, comes around today and writes. Consider the to be or not to be soliloquy:


To be, or not to be, that is the Question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the minde to suffer
The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune,
Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to dye, to sleepe
No more; and by a sleepe, to say we end
The Heart-ake, and the thousand Naturall shockes
That Flesh is heyre too? 'Tis a consummation
Deuoutly to be wish'd. To dye to sleepe,
To sleepe, perchance to Dreame; I, there's the rub,
For in that sleepe of death, what dreames may come,
When we haue shuffel'd off this mortall coile,
Must giue vs pawse. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would beare the Whips and Scornes of time,
The Oppressors wrong, the poore mans Contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd Loue, the Lawes delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurnes
That patient merit of the vnworthy takes,
When he himselfe might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would these Fardles beare
To grunt and sweat vnder a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The vndiscouered Countrey, from whose Borne
No Traueller returnes, Puzels the will,
And makes vs rather beare those illes we haue,
Then flye to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of vs all,
And thus the Natiue hew of Resolution
Is sicklied o're, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprizes of great pith and moment,
With this regard their Currants turne away,
And loose the name of Action.


This, of course, sounds absolutely brilliant as the words of a 16th century man. In such a context, it works wonderfully, because we expect of it only what it already is.

But if Shakespeare were to write that today, no one would care. They would think it was silly.

Words like nobler in the mind to suffer would make no sense. Slings and arrows are out of fashion. Taking arms against a sea of troubles to oppose them likewise. Death as sleep is an old motif, and heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to would sound so silly from a contemporary. Same goes for cosummations devoutly to be wished, shuffled mortal coils, calamities of so long life, whips and scorns of time, making your quietus with a bodkin, and so on.

As such, no one can write like Shakespeare, because the following principles apply to us:

- the past is firmly the past
- the present has to be like the present
- the present is not like the past, and is therefore inferior
- if anyone comes around being a slice of the past as good as the past, we will think it silly

Think about it. What do you say?

to shut or not to shut up, that is the common task in here.. again...

Misstep, netjade?

The affectations of the past seem just like that in the present: bad affectations.

And yet the present never seems to measure up to the past.

How do you explain it?

noo/oape .... let those peoples go goes more intense instead...

Err.

Socrates had Plato as his disciple. Plato had Aristotle as his disciple.

Three of the greatest thinkers in human history, you would say. In the same city. One for each generation. Rather lucky, wasn't it?

Except they weren't that great.

History remembers the remembered.

Yep I agree with you,Mismaiome - it's all about timing.

Music does not work in a vacuum. The tension that makes music interesting is the tension between (1) what we actually hear and (2) what we expect to hear. Context is what provides the basis for what we expect to hear.

It's the diversion from expectation (i.e. context) that makes art interesting. That's why our tastes change as we acquire more data to fill in the context part of the equation.

I would heartily disagree with any movement urging critics to disregard context.

"But is it fair to judge songs, or people, or anything - according to something they really have no control over? The members of TV On The Radio had not even been born yet in 1966."

Yes. It's fair. TV On The Radio got the benefit of listening to The Beatles (and 30 years more worth of pop music) before making their record.

I would heartily disagree with any movement urging critics to disregard context.


Context of precedence, I meant.

Some people regard Billie Holiday as a better singer than Aretha Franklin, because she came first. If Franklin had come first, you can be sure that Billie would have definitively been in her shadow.

Luckily for Aretha, her generation was one of folks that asserted their generation over the generations of the past. Music criticism of the 20th century become rock criticism.

But those who like Billie more use precedence as a basis, consciously or not.

Do you think that makes any sense?

As for the surprise element of music - surely the electronic music of the 60's is a lot more surprising than the pop/rock and would have more appeal to you, if appeal actually was the contrast between context and reality?


Yes. It's fair. TV On The Radio got the benefit of listening to The Beatles (and 30 years more worth of pop music) before making their record.


And The Beatles had the benefit of listening to hundreds of years of classical music. Your point is?

You could make an argument of any sort for any position. You could argue Wolf Like Me is metaphorical and Tomorrow Never Knows is just random quotes, but it won't change anyone's opinion. Having a rhetorical out doesn't, as pundits would assert, defeat a point.

Tomorrow Never Knows, and most of the Beatles catalog spoke most directly to their contemporary audience, but they also had meaning that universalized to the human condition. Like A Rolling Stone was about the excesses the rich were accustomed to in 1966, but who couldn't imagine it being about Paris Hilton?

But, you can't fully appreciate how the Beatles' words universalize to the human condition without considering how they were meant to be defiant and liberating to their original audience.

Saying you should judge Tomorrow Never Dies completely outside of it's original context is like saying you should judge the Sistine Chapel without considering the imagery is Christian.

But, you can't fully appreciate how the Beatles' words universalize to the human condition without considering how they were meant to be defiant and liberating to their original audience.


If they were so defiant and liberating, why didn't they ever say anything about Vietnam?

If a bunch of silly quotes can universalize the human condition, so can Wolf Like Me's more original lyrics.

I’m all for investigating the principles we use, consciously or not, to talk about music (although I prefer just talking about music).

Here’s a possible principle: Everything matters.

Context matters and vocals matter and influence matters and production values matter. So does biography and politics and technology and wit and originality and drumming and so on and on. And what you emphasize influences how you see any particular artist.

We will never fully understand any artist or group. I’m tired of the Beatles, so let’s take, I dunno…Talking Heads. What do we need to understand them? Well, we need to listen to their albums. Then, we definitely need to know something about David Byrne’s biography and musical training. We should watch Stop Making Sense and True Stories. We should know what CBGB was, and the part it played in the band’s development. We might want to investigate the roles of women in early punk/new wave, to get a sense of what Tina Weymouth brought to the band. We should know about Brian Eno and Philip Glass and Laurie Anderson. We should have a sense of the relationships within the band, and why they failed eventually. We should know something about the early years of MTV. And so on.

And when we’ve got all that stuff under control, we’ll have a very full picture of T-Heads, but we get different pictures of the band depending on what we emphasize and what we downplay. There will never be a definitive, argument-clinching, final critical statement about them, or about any other band.

And why should there be? I really like looking at music from different perspectives. As I’ve said before, my top ten anything changes from day to day, depending on what lens I’m looking through.

Even though this site—which I love—is about ranking artists and recordings, ranking is really just an interesting by-product of music criticism. Ranking should never be our first principle…I grow weary of playing games of did-not-did-too with little toy soldiers labeled “Beatles” and “VU” and “Prince” and “Dylan.”

Heh, schleuse. Survivor was all about that.

You're not wrong, mismaiome.

I think I've already adjusted to a more inclusive and celebratory state of mind in preparation for the Hall of Acclaim (plug). Survivor's been fun, and I'm glad we did it, but it has taken a toll.

****

Holy shit. My hand to god, the four characters in the code box are CGBG...no it's not CBGB, but it's close enough. Did I break the internet or something?

(1) Billie Holiday is objectively better than Aretha Franklin, context notwithstanding. (I'm sure you can look that up in some magazine if you need confirmation of my point.) In any event, I think Aretha is more highly regarded by the critics, notwithstanding Billie's objective superiority.

(2) Your classical music argument is weak, I think. TV on Radio is part of the same narrow musical tradition (rock-based pop) as The Beatles, with 30 years more worth of specific developments in the field. So if they sound like the Beatles only with "better production values" I say "What's the big deal? It's already been done." (I do realize your point is that I shouldn't be saying that.)

Which leads me to a small point in favor of considering precedent and awarding more acclaim to artists who advance the artform within their historical context. We love art because of its expressive value. Generally speaking, creativity is a more impressive human trait than technical proficiency or production values. So, a big part of why we listen to music is to be impressed by the creativity of the artist. It's not all about hearing the best sounds. Understanding the degree of creativity involved in a particular piece of music requires an historical context.

Boiled down: Precedence should be rewarded because creating precedent is an impressive accomplishment.

To counter your idea that precedent is over-rated, I think many modern acts supplant older acts for no reason other than the fact that they are newer (example could be Aretha over Billie). I am probably more guilty of valuing precedent than most readers of this forum. I say this simply because most of my favorite acts had best material 40-50 years ago (Miles Davis, Hank Williams, Billie Holiday, Frank Sinatra, Bob Dylan, Beach Boys, Kinks). I suppose you would find this to be a bit daft.

Taste is subjective. Music isn't a competition. It's an exercise in futility to argue what is better from an objective standpoint.

I'll leave it at that.

My statement that Billie Holiday was objectively better than Aretha Franklin was not meant to be taken seriously. If that makes any sense.

And music IS a competition.

It's The Beatles against everybody else!

(1) Billie Holiday is objectively better than Aretha Franklin, context notwithstanding. (I'm sure you can look that up in some magazine if you need confirmation of my point.) In any event, I think Aretha is more highly regarded by the critics, notwithstanding Billie's objective superiority.


I was talking only in terms of precedence.

What I'm saying is that Billie invariably casts a shadow over Aretha because of the apprenticeship factor. Anyone who is preceded by someone becomes the unwilling apprentice of that person in popular perception.

And here is the best example I'm going to find.

Albrecht Dürer (1471-152 is regarded as the greatest artist of the Reinassance in Northern Europe.

Thousands upon thousands of artists today are much better than Dürer ever was, if you judge them by imagination and talent alone. They, however, will never be highly regarded at all.

Does it seem fair to you?


(2) Your classical music argument is weak, I think. TV on Radio is part of the same narrow musical tradition (rock-based pop) as The Beatles, with 30 years more worth of specific developments in the field.


That's because you judge them by their own movement, instead of music as a whole.

Then consider the pop/rock that preceded them. Did they even come close to matching the quality of 50's rock like The Crickets?

Except, in popular vision, it's The Beatles casting shadows over everyone, instead of The Crickets.


Which leads me to a small point in favor of considering precedent and awarding more acclaim to artists who advance the artform within their historical context.

Boiled down: Precedence should be rewarded because creating precedent is an impressive accomplishment.


But anyone could have created precedent; they just didn't get to.

Is precedent really more than novelty value?

I know my art is in a constant upwards flux way is rather radical, but c'mon.

An artist wishing to prove being better than Dürer has exactly two options:

- play by Dürer's rules of medieval imagery, so he can show he can do the exact same things better, and fail because Dürer's precedence - luck of having been born so much earlier - is firmly rooted in our consciousness; the new artist's best efforts would be regarded as derivative, because we have already made our choice about who is better.

- invent an entirely new style, in which case - again, and absurdly - one cannot be as good as Dürer, because one is doing an entirely different thing, and we hate to take on new people under our wing of appreciation, because we've already made our choices.


To counter your idea that precedent is over-rated, I think many modern acts supplant older acts for no reason other than the fact that they are newer (example could be Aretha over Billie). I am probably more guilty of valuing precedent than most readers of this forum. I say this simply because most of my favorite acts had best material 40-50 years ago (Miles Davis, Hank Williams, Billie Holiday, Frank Sinatra, Bob Dylan, Beach Boys, Kinks). I suppose you would find this to be a bit daft.


I know this. But usually, those who actually do the writing of history have a good sense of it; and it's a sense that only makes few get filtered through.

What's your stance on Dürer?

As for rock criticism's bias, it's heavy on Part 2 of the 20th century because most of the kids didn't have a sense of history. The kids are now, however, grown.

And notice when I say:


Then consider the pop/rock that preceded them. Did they even come close to matching the quality of 50's rock like The Crickets?


I obviously don't agree with my question, because I don't agree with historical precedence so much anymore.

But you do. So what do you say? That'll Be The Day, Words Of Love, Maybe, etc. VS The Beatles' early.

Of course taste is subjective; I just want us to better understand what it is subjective to.


And music IS a competition.

It's The Beatles against everybody else!


I guess so, but because we can't help it. It's almost like talking about religion without mentioning the Bible. We can't help but use them as a benchmark.

Maybe a Brian Wilson with more quality control and less peer pressure could have compared better with them. Or a surviving Buddy Holly.

But still: Dürer anyone?

Let's try another one.

Why is it that a band like The Flaming Lips, who have as much melody and creativity as The Beatles and The Beach Boys, and better gimmicks too, are not as well regarded?

And then ask yourself this: could they ever even be as well regarded in this musical climate?

Will you give it a rest on the Beatles man. The Beatles were influenced by Chuck Berry, Elvis, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, skiffle, pop music and of course Buddy Holly. Buddy Holly was rock and roll not pop/rock. The Beatles were pop/rock. 50's rock and roll differ so much from the Beatles one the obvious the Beatles chord usage and use of melody. The music of today is classed as rock music.

The Beatles were a mixture of rock and roll, pop music, R&B with folk and some jazz harmony with the emphasis on melody instead of the blues. That is why they sound different than the Stones and the Beach Boys or anyone else in music.

The Flaming Lips who was one of a legion of bands influenced by the Beatles never came up with a melody like "Something" which Sinatra called the greatest love song of the past 50 years. How about the melodies of "Yesterday" or the melodies on side two of Abbey Road. I don't mean to dump on you but this is absurd.

The Beatles musically , those who are impressed by the inventive and chaotic chord progressions lift the group out of its natural habitat of popular music and place it among the artistic elite of the twentieth century. Like Dylan and McGuinn. Hey I'm in a band not that is a great deal but their is a lot folk influence and modal harmony in their early music which is why McGuinn and others think the Beatles really started folk-rock.

Blues musicians had a time covering their songs also.
It is not the chords themselves, but the chord sequences that are at the core of the sound of the Beatles. Their unorthodoxy on this point made it so difficult for other groups — especially for those with a blues background — to cover their songs. It still is responsible for the ongoing debate on which chord is which in a specific Beatles' song. www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME03/Words_and_chords.shtml

Then there is you On the one hand, those who find no real meaning in the songs of the Beatles. Really, man give it a rest on the Beatles. Do you know how hard it is to play instruments and sing vocal harmonies at the same time which they did on their early studio records. The Beach Boys much of the instuments they were so supposed to play were done by studio musicians. The Stones vocal harmonies? Or write a good melody instead of covering someone else music. By the way "Tomorrow Never Knows" many people think the principles of many modern dance tyes Acid House and Psychedelic Big Beat are on this song. So why are you comparing it to "Wolf Like Me". What is the logic behind your method.

The Beatles worked in the Pop/Rock field which they are the most influential at. Its very simple you have two music forms rock and pop music and they thrived on combining both. So their influence extends into pop music and rock because they combined both.

Do you want to know how influential they are go to here and look at the followers list. Now compare it to Dylan or VU then tell me if the Beatles did not better Buddy Holly. www.answers.com/topic/the-beatles

Henrik, have you ever locked two threads in a single week? Just askin'...

I go by what musicians say and hearing and playing the actual music. That's how I form my opinion. Everyone has an a opinion and everyone has right to say who they prefer. I just think its strange that Mis is going on like this about the Beatles. I don't think I am out of line to point out what musicians have said what is special about the Beatles music. I even cover their songs they are a lot different than playing the Rolling Stones or their peers of mid 60's. Go try to cover "Love You To" or the polyrhythmic "Happiness is A Warm Gun". Then come and tell thats Buddy Holly. I respect Buddy Holly but musically the Beatles were way more complicated than Buddy Holly.

This isn't pop/rock?





Except Buddy Holly died at 22.

I hesitate to jump in here, but the fact that "Happiness is a Warm Gun" has several discrete sections doesn't exactly make it "polyrhythmic". Far as I can tell there's only one rhythm going at a time there - roll over, David Byrne, and tell Paul Simon the news. And the final section is simply a pastiche/parody of doo-wop - a brilliant, hilarious pastiche, but what in the world is so innovative about that?

And why in the hell would anyone WANT to cover "Love You To"?

It was all downhill after Pete Best left, anyway.

While you're at it, maybe you should mention that Bob Dylan said he couldn't see the charm of something like Yesterday at all, that there were literally thousands of songs like it in the Library of Congress.

I don't rely on testimony because testimony is silly. It says nothing. Testimony is what makes people end up believing in aliens, ghosts and too much in The Beatles.

And I can't see how you can dismiss the Lips' melodies.



But that's right. If they were from the 60's, you'd focus on every single nuance of every angellic sound. As they're not, you try to dismiss them.

The Beatles used polyrhythm in their famous 1968 song Happiness Is A Warm Gun (from the White Album). The song also changes time-signature frequently. The song is one of the most screwed up time signatures in rock music until that point and so is Good Morning, Good Morning. There were of plenty of others "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" alternates between 3/4 and 4/4 in sections and "Here Comes the Sun" has compound mutliple meters in sections.

"Happiness Is A Warm Gun" four differenct sections each section has a different musical style and differnent vocal styles and a polyrhythm. Sounds innovative to me. The song's multiple sections would inspire Radiohead's three part "Paranoid Android" on OK Computer.

Hey mis is it my problem you don't know the difference between 50's rock and roll and rock music.

Hey maybe you guys might not like "Love You To" but a Dorian Mode song using Indian music song with rock. Go ahead fine one song like that in rock music.

Rock musicians who emerged in the 1960s and '70s experimented with unusual meters and structures. Notable examples include The Beatles, Henry Cow, Cream, Captain Beefheart, Frank Zappa, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Genesis, Jethro Tull, Gentle Giant, Yes, Rush, King Crimson.

Hey maybe you guys might not like "Love You To" but a Dorian Mode song using Indian music song with rock. Go ahead fine one song like that in rock music.

The Beatles did that and everyone else thought: "Wow, that sucks.. I can't believe they actually did something as stupid as that. Lets not do that."

Anyway, I personally believe The Beatles to be the most influential, most innovative and greatest band ever. So, now we've got that behind us, lets get back to the discussion at hand, shall we?

It was all downhill after Sutcliffe left.

Let's just put this thing to bed and talk about the only two bands that really matter, Yellowcard and Angels & Airwaves.

Ok. Listen. This isn't about that. I just spent the whole thread - and every single post - explaining that too much value is given to context, and you come along and explain the unfathomable influence to me all over again.

Good Vibrations was 2 years before Happiness Is A Warm Gun. As such, although the latter is cute, I'm going to say the former made it obsolete.

In fact, I'm going to go as far as to say that, yes, The Crickets made The Early Beatles obsolete, and The Beach Boys made The Later Beatles obsolete.

I cannot, however, find a band that was simultaneously both The Early Beatles and The Later Beatles. I would love to wave such a band at you, to see you twist around in utter defeat. Unfortunately, this is not the case; The Beatles actually were the greatest band of all times. People like me and netjade can come around all the time and tell you how obscenely dull they actually were, and while this may make you listen to us with curiosity and fascination, wishing we could introduce you to much better music that you have hitherto ignored, because deep inside your heart you do hope someone was better than The Beatles, you will soon notice, as soon as we offer our alternatives to The Beatles, that these actually suck, and that ends up damaging our credibility.

But back to my making of strange points that anyone in their right mind - including me, of course - disagrees with by definition.

I mean, back to the topic of this thread - the reanalysis of every fiber of our perception of worth!

You'll notice I contradict myself. This is not actually true.

You still haven't answered this: if The Flaming Lips had released The Soft Bulletin in 1966, and The Beach Boys had released Pet Sounds in 1999, is it true that no one would have cared about Pet Sounds?

All I've seen so far is how everyone makes concessions for the past, and selectively too.

I knew it, Anthony, and I've foreseen it. There's still humour in you...

If the equivalent of John, Paul, George, and Ringo had been born in 1985 and formed a band in 2005, would they now be....

(A) Better than the Beatles of 1966? (Thanks to all of the technological and pop music innovations during the intervening years)

or

(B) Worse than the Beatles of 1966? (Because they are what they are, but are being "penalized" for being born 40 years later than the original Beatles)

Bonus question: If John, Paul, George, and Ringo had been born in 1985 and formed a band in 2005, would they now be....

(A) Better than TV On The Radio? (Because they are musical geniuses notwithstanding the time period in which they appear).

or

(B) Worse than TV On The Radio? (Because their music is, objectively speaking, not as good).

"Good Vibrations" was 2 years before "Happiness Is a Warm Gun" so what. Two different songs and two different styles. "Good Vibrations" is a great song fine but "Happiness is A Warm Gun" was noted for its multi time signatures and it's multi-part structures. I find it funny people have pointed out to you Brian Wilson packed it in after hearing "Strawberry Fields Forever". Maybe I should point out to you that a polyrhythm is common in jazz music and in Progressive rock and Math Rock.

Most people listen to music because how it sounds or the lyrics. Most musicians think of sound but they want to know how they got there. I don't think people care if the Beatles were using the Mixolydian Mode in a non blues context "Every Little Thing" or "Norwegian Wood". Or the Beatles were using the Dorian Mode in an art song way like "Eleanor Rigby". Or the Beatles were using jazz harmony on "Things We Said Today". The musicians were listening and dude you can say what you want. I did see the site that Rank1 was referring to about the amount who people have cited the Beatles as an influence. I don't like "Love You Too" either but I credit them for being out of the box and for influencing World Fusion.
I credit Brian Wilson, Buddy Holly and the Cricketts also.

You know what, I don't go around saying things like they sucked. Its just an opinion. Nothing is proven by that statement.

Paul don't you think this whole topic is revisionist history. Many of the bands in 1985 were influenced by the British Invasion Bands which morphed into Folk Rock, so many 60's rock genres and Dylan himself going electric. You never know teen music and surf rock could have been the dominant music well into the 60's without these things happening. The Stones and the Kinks being one example helped take garage rock out its underground scene into pop music for example. Go ahead speculate what does it prove.

How important is context? It's an interesting question (that can be discussed without examples that make people upset).

However, I don't think there's an answer to the question. There's no right and wrong. Some people (including lots of critics) think it's very important while others don't. And that's as it should be; innovators get remembered and there's also plenty of room for new bands.

For me, production is quite important. However, when I buy several albums at the same time, I often start to listen to the newest/most wellproduced/best sounding album, but love the oldest album most in the end, if I find that - behind the production - the older recording have a bigger heart and soul. But context certainly plays a role as well.

Henrik the biggest problem for a band these days is that when any band comes out they are immediately compared to the bands of the past. I think it ruined Oasis in the States and much of Britpop because the public won't let them be the next great band. Peace

Chelsea,

I am trying to get mismaiome to reconsider the notion that modern artists are being unfairly penalized because older artists did things first.

Here's another tact: Considering the fact that music has been around since the dawn of time, there really isn't much difference between the Beatles and TV On The Radio--relatively speaking--in terms of where they fall into the history of music. In either case, the vast majority of historical music preceded their work--especially, if like mismaiome, you do not make distinctions between different styles and genres.

The Beatles had thousands of years of precedent to overcome, including that Durer guy. TV On The Radio had thousands of years plus thirty. I don't think we're getting anywhere saying that the Beatles have an unwarranted critical advantage due to the timing of their birth.

Also, speculation for the sake of speculation is a worthwile endeavor notwithstanding whether anything is proved.

Elvis Costello & The Attractions - (I Don't Want To Go To) Chelsea (197


"Good Vibrations" was 2 years before "Happiness Is a Warm Gun" so what. Two different songs and two different styles.


Both multi-part. I therefore reserve the right to be unimpressed when someone goes on about the latter.


I find it funny people have pointed out to you Brian Wilson packed it in after hearing "Strawberry Fields Forever".


Are you hearing yourself? Kid geniuses pack it in when the school bullies pick on them, too; it doesn't mean a thing.

Deference based on lack of self-esteem is, y'know, extremely unreliable.


The musicians were listening and dude you can say what you want.


Keith Moon was a musician. Keith Moon said Pet Sounds wasn't that big of a deal. Therefore, according to you, it logically follows that...


I did see the site that Rank1 was referring to about the amount who people have cited the Beatles as an influence.


So? They had many fans. Three quarters of those bands are bad bar bands.


I don't like "Love You Too" either but I credit them for being out of the box and for influencing World Fusion.


The Kinks' "See My Friends", anyone?


You know what, I don't go around saying things like they sucked. Its just an opinion.


No shit, Sherlock.

One in good humor, of course.


You never know teen music and surf rock could have been the dominant music well into the 60's without these things happening.


Guitar bands were on the way out. It would have been awesome.

It could have been worse, it could have been better. The way it was was chance - who needs chance?


The Stones and the Kinks being one example helped take garage rock out its underground scene into pop music for example. Go ahead speculate what does it prove.


It proves... that it would have happened anyway?

Henrik


but love the oldest album most in the end, if I find that - behind the production - the older recording have a bigger heart and soul.


I wasn't saying, of course, that production makes music better.

I'm not present-centric.

My suggestion, to myself and others, is that everyone try to enjoy everything, by finding the best mood and angle for the approach of everything.

But 60's-centrism seems so very snobbish at times.

We should discount the present less, maybe.

Paul


If the equivalent of John, Paul, George, and Ringo had been born in 1985 and formed a band in 2005, would they now be....

(A) Better than the Beatles of 1966? (Thanks to all of the technological and pop music innovations during the intervening years)


What I was saying is that technology works against you as an artist. If you don't use it, you're incompetent. If you use it, you come off as very gimmicky.

Whereas the gimmicks of the past are revered.

I think they would appear to be worse.

Consider The Libertines as a more concrete example.

This song, I would say, is at least as good as She Loves You:



Difference? One is #99, the other #2713.


(B) Worse than the Beatles of 1966? (Because they are what they are, but are being "penalized" for being born 40 years later than the original Beatles)


2713 is a long ways from 99, you'll agree.


Bonus question: If John, Paul, George, and Ringo had been born in 1985 and formed a band in 2005, would they now be....

(A) Better than TV On The Radio? (Because they are musical geniuses notwithstanding the time period in which they appear).


Not necessarily related, but for fun: McCartney has been appearing for a while. Apparently, he was good only in the 60's.


(B) Worse than TV On The Radio? (Because their music is, objectively speaking, not as good).


Hard to tell. I say worse for their first albums, with their first classic (as classic as contemporary albums go) a few years off, and with that one on par with TV On The Radio's 2006.


Back to Chelsea, as he posted while I was writing this post


Henrik the biggest problem for a band these days is that when any band comes out they are immediately compared to the bands of the past.


Exactly.

More Paul


The Beatles had thousands of years of precedent to overcome, including that Durer guy. TV On The Radio had thousands of years plus thirty. I don't think we're getting anywhere saying that the Beatles have an unwarranted critical advantage due to the timing of their birth.


Actually, I think so. Let me explain.

In the 60's, two things were going on. The new generation was having its own new musical movement, with its new rules - it was a rebellious generation that established its own new values. The old generation was, of course, retaining its values - this snobbery meant to them that The Beatles could never be as good as their music, jazz or classical or whatever it was for each in part. There was a degree of sophistication to jazz and classical music - sophistication based on precedence - that certainly they could never hope to attain.

It was, however, the new generation that wrote the history of 20th century music. Why? Because they survived up to its end.

And, if you've noticed, rebellious generations tend to be followed by somewhat more complacent ones, before another rebellious generation comes along.

I'm saying that we're judging the music of this generation according to the music of the last one - and perhaps this is not that fair to it.


Also, speculation for the sake of speculation is a worthwile endeavor notwithstanding whether anything is proved.


I think so too.

mismaiome says:

An artist wishing to prove being better than Dürer has exactly two options:

- play by Dürer's rules of medieval imagery, so he can show he can do the exact same things better, and fail because Dürer's precedence - luck of having been born so much earlier - is firmly rooted in our consciousness; the new artist's best efforts would be regarded as derivative, because we have already made our choice about who is better.

- invent an entirely new style, in which case - again, and absurdly - one cannot be as good as Dürer, because one is doing an entirely different thing, and we hate to take on new people under our wing of appreciation, because we've already made our choices.

Which choice did TV On The Radio make?
Which choice did The Beatles make?
Which choice more likely to yield critical acclaim?

You have framed the question to show that modern artists are put into a no-win position, but The Beatles and all other groups that followed Durer faced the same dilema.

Are you saying that we shouldn't have to wait 30 years for TV On The Radio to get their fair due, or are you saying that TV On The Radio will never get their fair due because they will always be unfairly overshadowed by The Beatles, who came "first"?

Sorry if I'm not following the argument.

Happiness is a Warm Gun", has a polyrhythm "Good Vibrations" doesn't. What is that you don't understand and that makes it different than "Good Vibrations"? The songs sound, genre and structure are so different the only thing that’s similar its multi-part. That’s it.

One the tonal concepts of Indian music are on "Ticket to Ride" which is before "See My Friends". That has been documented. "See My Friends" is not trad Indian music it just mimics it.

"Love you To", we find a genuinely Indian-styled usage of mode, melody, rhythm and instrumentation. Even the form, which otherwise maintains a "neo-classical" boxy rock form preserves the Indian convention of an out-of-tempo improvised slow intro.

Do you understand the difference?

On the influence list of the Beatles it more than doubles VU. Peace

Paul you are right about the Beatles. The Beatles had deal with the fact that people thought guitar groups were out and British Rock was inferior to American music and it would not sell in the states. It did not help that Britain’s biggest Cliff Richard was basically 00's version of Robbie Williams. They also were pressured to use a cover song for their first single in which they strongly opposed and won. They had also broke the American stranglehold on rock music. So the Beatles deserve a lot of credit for paving the way for the British Invasion acts like the Stones.

Chelsea


It was the first Beatles song that seriously attempted to incorporate classical Indian music. Harrison was learning the sitar from Ravi Shankar, who inspired him to learn more about Indian music and Eastern religion.


Yes, well:

"It was the first Beatles song that seriously attempted to incorporate classical Indian music. Harrison was learning the sitar from Ravi Shankar, who inspired him to learn more about Indian music and Eastern religion."

I'm not impressed.

And "Ticket To Ride" is hardly indian other than bits of drone mumbling.

As for time signature changes, those rather come naturally when you do multi-part songs. To some, anyway.

Paul


An artist wishing to prove being better than Dürer has exactly two options:

- play by Dürer's rules of medieval imagery, so he can show he can do the exact same things better, and fail because Dürer's precedence - luck of having been born so much earlier - is firmly rooted in our consciousness; the new artist's best efforts would be regarded as derivative, because we have already made our choice about who is better.

- invent an entirely new style, in which case - again, and absurdly - one cannot be as good as Dürer, because one is doing an entirely different thing, and we hate to take on new people under our wing of appreciation, because we've already made our choices.

Which choice did TV On The Radio make?
Which choice did The Beatles make?
Which choice more likely to yield critical acclaim?

You have framed the question to show that modern artists are put into a no-win position, but The Beatles and all other groups that followed Durer faced the same dilema.

Are you saying that we shouldn't have to wait 30 years for TV On The Radio to get their fair due, or are you saying that TV On The Radio will never get their fair due because they will always be unfairly overshadowed by The Beatles, who came "first"?

Sorry if I'm not following the argument.


You're right; it's confusing. Let me go on about it.

The Beatles did not start their own art movement. They synthesized the music that they heard as they were growing up. Therefore, I would say they were derivative.

Did you notice the 50's rockers, like Little Richard and Chuck Berry, thought it was unfair that their music was being stolen by those in their wake?

Although, of course, their music was derivative too. Fans of blues and country certainly thought so.

So something funny happened for The Beatles. They created both something new - or it seemed so to those who did not know music well enough to know better - and something old - to those who did know better.

That's what happened with the 50's rockers too.

With the Sex Pistols, even. (consider lack of knowledge of Iggy & The Stooges)

With Nirvana.

But as for The Beatles.

Rock 'n' rollers of the 50's movement knew their priorities lay with someone like Chuck Berry. And what did your average American kid who grew up with Elvis feel about The Beatles?

But then, of course, every one who didn't know better kept on raving about The Beatles. And it added up.

Did you ever notice that, when a lot of people that seem alright tell you that something you used to think was mediocre actually is great, you look at it in new ways?

Surely a few of us used to think Britney Spears' songs couldn't be closer to crap - before critics with bad taste but lots of charm came around, brainwashed us, and convinced us there was some good craftsmanship to them?

(As a sidenote, my approach to music does also tend to emphasize actual craftsmanship as a better judge of quality than mere dull personality on the part of the singer. Oh, and a sense of non-overbearing humor helps too.)

And then something else happened. Those who still weren't convinced by The Early Beatles had to face The Later Beatles, and this was bad business indeed.

Back in those times, albums were much easier to make, compared to today - in terms of time necessary. (I know that, otherwise, albums cost less to make today, but this doesn't apply to The Beatles - because they didn't have a budget at first, and because they had an unlimited one afterwards)

I call this the Capacity To Churn Out At Least One Album Every Year factor. Nowadays, you'll notice, it takes you months or years to record an album. Additionally, record companies tend to emphasize the improtance of putting out an album a few years apart, so that you don't compete with yourself. So it seems incredible when someone follows up an album with another one just one later.

So, back to being Beatle-wise, The Beatles figured they would do something else in 1965: they would be derivative of something new.

At first they chose the string ballad. The other Beatles opposed "Yesterday" because it was too different from their old style (talk about originality), but then they went with it... And then, suddenly, this had opened whole new doors, along hey, it's actually okay to try stuff out!?!? lines.

Then they tried out folk, and a sitar in "Norwegian Wood".

Suddenly, it was okay to use sitars. Now it was truly alright to go crazy.

So we got Revolver, which had a blues/rock ("Taxman"), a soundtrack-like song ("Eleanor Rigby"), a The Beach Boys ("Here, There & Everywhere"), a soul with horns ("Got To Get You Into My Life"), a The Lovin' Spoonful ("Good Day Sunshine"), an indian attempt ("Love You To"), BBC-like tape loop wizardry ("Tomorrow Never Knows"), jangly Byrds-like sugar confections ("And Your Bird Can Sing", "She Said She Said"), apotheosis of horrible crap ("Yellow Submarine"), even as far as an attempt at 19th century art song ("For No One").

Basically, they ripped off everyone and their mom.

And it worked.

In fact, not only did it work, but their capacity to derive from everyone was so convincing, that at least half of the album was something new to everyone.

Imagine a fan of The Lovin' Spoonful.

"Ah... Well... I'm not so impressed by Good Day Sunshine... This stuff been done before. But. Hmm. Neither am I that impressed by Got To Get You Into My Life. And this Yellow Submarine song is so awful. But these other ones... Damn, they're pretty good and creative."

And the exact same thing went on for three other albums, until values had irreversibly been changed towards The Beatles, in their movement.

Now the 50's crowd understood why.

Of course, the 40's blues & country crowd still weren't convinced, but that's another story.

So much momentum was built up that no one could resist it.

However.

TV On The Radio will never be able to generate enough momentum. Certainly never the kind that The Beatles had.

They will never have enough followers, certainly not. And they have to put more work into their albums, and therefore spend a lot more time on each - but this fact is not appreciated.

Even if they had 7 albums, we'd use oh, but The Beatles put out an album every year! as an argument for The Beatles' superiority, just like we do with Radiohead.

(Don't want to bring Radiohead into the discussion; just noting that one fact.)

As for TV On The Radio, they are both derivative - in a sense they can't help, given how they don't have enough momentum to have their own musical movement, and are thus judged by pop/rock standards - and progressive - in a way that isn't appreciated for the same reason.

Visual artists like Dürer have even bigger fish to fry, naturally, if they ever want to be regarded as great. Most are relegated to being video game concept artists - which, by definition, is regarded unarty.

As for critical acclaim, true originality always seems to lead to bigtime obscurity. You always seem to need to be derivative to some extent if you want to even stand a chance - and then, it's held against you, unless you can somehow convince people that you're actually doing something entirely new, like The Beatles did.

When will you learn the Beatles roots are skiffle so it was natural for them to use folk with rock. The Byrd’s went electric because of the Beatles folk chord changes. You know the Lovin Spoonful went electric also because of the Beatles.

"Taxman"- Mixolydian Mode with dissonant chords and distorted raga guitar solo. Influences Jim Hendrix.
The Beatles already did the jangle sound before the Byrd’s and it’s well known that the Byrd’s got their 12 strings after hearing "A Hard Days Night"
"And Your Bird Can Sing"- There is hardly any jangle on that song. The Byrd’s never came close to that guitar sound and style. I think it’s to fast Roger McGuinn fingers to play.
"She Said She Said"- Another song that uses mixed meter and uses Mixolydian Harmony.
"Tomorrow Never Knows"- were created by the Beatles and it’s influenced by avant music. It influences the Chemical Brothers who do two songs based on this song.
"Good Day Sunshine-The Lovin Spoonful influenced them but have you heard the song you are talking about. The Melody and sound is nothing like the Lovin Spoonful.
"Got to Get You into My Life- do you think honestly think the Beatles are the first group influenced by Soul Music. The Beatles added a rock backbeat and its style The Rolling Stones ripped later "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow. Also influences Chicago

All you need to do is hear the Byrd’s Younger than Yesterday or the Preflyte session that the Byrd’s were influenced by the Beatles. Everyone took from the Beatles the Stones sitar and copying Sgt Pepper for example. King Crimson even took the exact beginning of "Strawberry Fields Forever" and Tomorrow Thelma Knows is a tribute to the Beatles.

What kind of music influenced "See My Friends" and "Eight Miles High"? Oh that’s right Indian Music. At least the Beatles did it the traditional way. Plus the Beatles beat the Kinks to the Indian Concept of drone. What wrong with a band doing music from the 19th century? Much of progressive rock is influenced by classical music.

Nothing in rock music sounded like "Eleanor Rigby", "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Love You Too","I'm Only Sleeping", "Strawberry Fields Forever"

Lastly much of progressive rock is formatted multi-part song with polyrhythms. So "Happiness is a Warm Gun" is nothing like "Good Vibrations". What the hell is wrong with Harrison trying to incorporate the sitar with rock music or folk rock?

I think mate you have problems. I have seen some similiar posts across the internet that sound just like you and the line "that the Beatles Suck" across than more than a few music sites. I am joining Yesstories and leaving.

Ok mismaiome, that's what I was looking for. Thanks.

I just want to say hi to Pierre S. The Beach Boys and the Byrd’s are great but they never rocked as hard as "Revolution" or "Everybody's Got Something to Hide". They can't even get played on Classic Rock Radio. The Beatles derivative of Chuck Berry? I think you got them confused with the Stones. The Beatles derivative of blues music hmm Yardbirds or the Animals I think. The Beatles 1962-1964 wrote only three songs with 12 blues bar progressions. I forgot the Beatles wrote their own songs when the others were cover bands.

The Beatles had their influences like everyone else but they were hardly derivative of black music. They were more original.

Just in case you need reminding. The Beatles musically , those who are impressed by the inventive and chaotic chord progressions lift the group out of its natural habitat of popular music and place it among the artistic elite of the twentieth century. Like Dylan and McGuinn.

Blues musicians had a time covering their songs also.
It is not the chords themselves, but the chord sequences that are at the core of the sound of the Beatles. Their unorthodoxy on this point made it so difficult for other groups — especially for those with a blues background — to cover their songs. It still is responsible for the ongoing debate on which chord is which in a specific Beatles' song.

I love the Byrd’s but I hate to pick on them. The Beatles doing folk rock and jangle pop was the reason the Byrd’s became a rock band.
Roger McGuinn- "It was really the Beatles who made the biggest difference in so many folk musicians’ lives”.” They were using folk music chord patterns with modal forth and fifth harmonies, and combining it with elements of jazz, blues, Bossa Nova and rock 'n' roll". Also the jangle sound was based on Beatles songs like the jangle fade out of "A Hard Day's Night" "What You're Doing" and others.

"Taxman" A Harrison song surprised that is influenced by Indian Music Mixolydian or Dorian. The tune is otherwise pentatonic blues. I wonder who was doing that in rock music.
" Tomorrow Never Knows- their own creation and McCartney was experimenting with backward tapes in 1965. He knew of Stockhausen. I wonder who was doing that in rock music
"And Your Bird Can Sing- sounds nothing like the Byrd’s
“She Said She Said-Modal Harmony! The harmonic vocabulary of "She Said She Said" is purely from the Mixolydian mode; and the meter scheme is pure Lennon. I wonder who was doing that in music
"Love You Too- why bother you are clueless. Please who else was doing this rock music?
"Got to get you Into My Life- so it was influenced by soul music but it had other elements. I challenge you to stylistically pigeon-hole this one: is it big-band "pop", neolyte blues, modal contemporary rock, or what-not. Please who else was doing this in rock?

"Strawberry Fields Forever"- two different versions of a song in different keys, one speeded up, one slowed down, both joined together so you can hardly tell where the join is.
Genius. Who was doing that in music?

You think "Good Vibrations" is the only song that is multipart. The Velvet Underground beat em to it and so did Zappa.

One of my favorite songs is "Waterloo Sunset" was influenced by "Penny Lane" or "You Can't Get Always What You Want" was the Rolling Stones answer to "Hey Jude" which left Mic Jaeger dumbfounded when he first heard it. Do I think any less of those songs no? Everyone was influencing each other. By the time Beatles hit Rubber Soul they were just as influenced by Indian, Avant Garde, Classical and Backward Music.

"Yesterday" happens to be the most covered song in the history of pop music. Dylan was a fan of the Beatles early music. He was not fan of the Beatles experimental music or anyone else for that matter.

I apologize to the forum because I know they don't like long posts. This is starting to be tedious. Someone pull the plug on this.

Give it a bone

1001 albums you must hear before you die,quote from the review of Morrissey's Viva Hate: "Without Marr,who had signaled the end to their partnership and THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME in 1987,a swiftly prepared Morrissey record did not bod well.

The Smiths kick phony British Beatlemania's ass...

I don't get this. Like Henrik said, everyone was doing some things - heck, a lot of things - that The Beatles didn't do at all. You don't seem to take that into consideration at all.

Just look what kind of music people had back in 1963:



This is not some obscure freaky piece by an unheard of composer whose value is only well-regarded in "revisionist history". This is the theme song from Doctor Who, which influenced George Martin to put out his own dance song at the time.

And you still think what The Beatles were doing was groundbreaking?

It's absurd if you leave because oh, I just don't want to understand how big and mighty they were. But you keep on going about their influence, when I've already explained a dozen times that influence is not the point, certainly not in this thread, and especially not when you're selective with it.

This thread is about thinking out of the box - that which you claim you admire so much. And not about influence at all.