-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Today is The Beatles Day
- Thread starter CRASHiC
- Start date
T-major
Smash Champion
Wow.
normally I get pissed off at people being stupid. not you. you're being so stupid that I'm just brushing you off. to the same extent as someone trying to convince me that 2+2=5. I know they're wrong, so **** em'! :D
you can hate popular music just because it's popular all you want. I don't care, it doesn't effect me. that doesn't change the fact that every reason (and I use the term loosely) you've given either displays an extremely one-track viewpoint (that a band needs to be the first to do something in order to be classified as influential), or ridiculous logic that is obviously wrong if you actually used any sense (that a band being popular has no impact on the advancement of music).
maybe you should rethink everything you've been saying. not one person has agreed with you, so you must be going wrong somewhere in your argument. maybe if you weren't completely wrong it would help you a bit, but until then you better start coming up with some really convincing reasons.
normally I get pissed off at people being stupid. not you. you're being so stupid that I'm just brushing you off. to the same extent as someone trying to convince me that 2+2=5. I know they're wrong, so **** em'! :D
you can hate popular music just because it's popular all you want. I don't care, it doesn't effect me. that doesn't change the fact that every reason (and I use the term loosely) you've given either displays an extremely one-track viewpoint (that a band needs to be the first to do something in order to be classified as influential), or ridiculous logic that is obviously wrong if you actually used any sense (that a band being popular has no impact on the advancement of music).
maybe you should rethink everything you've been saying. not one person has agreed with you, so you must be going wrong somewhere in your argument. maybe if you weren't completely wrong it would help you a bit, but until then you better start coming up with some really convincing reasons.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
And I ask, how many of these people actually study music?
How many of these people have actually questioned what they have been told about The Beatles influence?
Also, it was not just "they didn't do it first" because they also did not popularize nor enhance any of these techniques.
And if you knew your music history, you would see that popularity far from shows the influence the artist will have. There were musicians far more popular in Mozart's day, Puccini's last two Operas TOSCA and Madam Butterfly were met with such low regard, the end of Madam Butterfly caused 5 minutes of a silent non moving crowd, followed by a riot as Puccini shouted at them from above. Today, these are the most known, most seen, and most played operas in the world.
Unless you can offer me a single thing The Beatles had actually done to enhance music, there is no reason to flame. I understand you like The Beatles and I have no quarrel with that, what I have a bone to pick about is their over inflated image of importance to music that is simply non-existent. Nothing I have said about The Beatles is false, and nothing I have said about the other musicians that I give as examples to influential artist is wrong either.
To avoid further confusion on this and having to settle the same questions over and over again, I'm going to copy my argument into the OP
You are told of their influence, but when you do your research of the evolution of music, there is nothing there to support it.
How many of these people have actually questioned what they have been told about The Beatles influence?
Also, it was not just "they didn't do it first" because they also did not popularize nor enhance any of these techniques.
And if you knew your music history, you would see that popularity far from shows the influence the artist will have. There were musicians far more popular in Mozart's day, Puccini's last two Operas TOSCA and Madam Butterfly were met with such low regard, the end of Madam Butterfly caused 5 minutes of a silent non moving crowd, followed by a riot as Puccini shouted at them from above. Today, these are the most known, most seen, and most played operas in the world.
Unless you can offer me a single thing The Beatles had actually done to enhance music, there is no reason to flame. I understand you like The Beatles and I have no quarrel with that, what I have a bone to pick about is their over inflated image of importance to music that is simply non-existent. Nothing I have said about The Beatles is false, and nothing I have said about the other musicians that I give as examples to influential artist is wrong either.
To avoid further confusion on this and having to settle the same questions over and over again, I'm going to copy my argument into the OP
You are told of their influence, but when you do your research of the evolution of music, there is nothing there to support it.
T-major
Smash Champion
Popularity doesn't mean they WILL have influence (or vice versa). but The Beatles were (and still are) popular, and because of that tons of bands we're able to flourish.
Like many other people have said, The Beatles led the British Invasion (which is a historical fact. everybody will tell you that), in which many of the greatest bands came to America as a result of. bands originating from a completely different nation becoming mainstream in America because of The Beatles popularity. thats a huge accomplishment. Popularity matters. it's a fact.
again, The British Invasion. however, I suppose your next argument will be that that never actually happened.
except the part where you said that them being popular didn't effect anything.
what your problem is, is that you're acting like history would be exactly the same if The Beatles we're there. that "bands would still make music without the Beatles". yeah, but America probably wouldn't know about them, which would have changed what music was popular in America, and then influence what type of music bands would play.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
-Wiki
Evidently, the Beatles were such a powerhouse in sales, it made it easier for British acts that could sound like them to come over. Since the Beatles were so wide-ranged, many, many bands could fit the bill.
You claiming you have study music history is laughable because in my history of Rock and Roll, the Beatles were given an entire chapter because they were so important.
You still haven't explained the whole "Led Zeppelin formed in Seattle" thing; frankly, that brings your credibility crashing down.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
In order for that to be influence, it would have to include the album has a part of musical form. This is not something I agree with. In terms of the actual sounds on the album, it has little Beatles influence, as its rather easy to tell.
No, it does not mean that they will have influence. Let me use Talk Talk as an example.
Talk Talk was once very popular, and was the definition of 80s electro pop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fntl0mK3fzY
However, despite their early albums popularity, they have no effect on music whatsoever. It was towards the end of Talk Talk's career that we see an album that has had a large effect on modern day music. The album Laughing Stock was met with so-so musical acclaim, and poor record sales, and its sound being largely overshadowed by grunge movement. Causing the band to finally disband their efforts after years of work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9HsGsB-MCM
Flashforward more than 10 years later, and Pitchfork names Laughing Stock the 11th best album of the decade, and the album has founded an entire musical genre, Post Rock, with acts including the Japanese band Mono, the Scandivian post rock band Sigure Ros, as well as many other corresponding acts around the globe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doc1eqstMQQ
Every band in The British Invasion was already creating the music, and had a fan base in Europe. The only thing that the invasion did was give those who do not search out music a realization that it was there.
The British Invasion was a revolution in music business, but it did in no way change musical form.
I think your problem, is that you are basing everything off the idea of music business, which has on affect on musical form.
What is popular here and now does not necessarily effect the music being made 100 years from now, nor does it affect the bands that musicians choose to take influence from.
Again Crimson, you ignore the fact that without huge popularity, the work of Bruce Haack has become very popular and is known throughout the world, as had King Tubby who rarely went outside Jamacia, yet is a large influential voice is dub, dnb, and ragee. Much of today's production techniques in those genres came from him, as had the very basis for dub and modern day sampling.
The Beatles may have change what the music industry had considered viable, but they did not in any way change musical forms, which is what being influential in music is about.
That was a fluke.
There was a huge Zepplin fan in my class, and when we got a new student from Seatle, he said Led Zepplin was from Seatle. I've never liked Zep, and never had a reason to look into their musical history.
If you're as much of an expert on the Beatles and that time period as you claim to be, you'd **** well better know about Led Zeppelin. Not to mention that everybody knows Led Zep's an English band.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
I knew that they were from England, but according to this fan, they either met in Seattle, or had their first concert in Seattle, I forgot what he had said.
And I have listened to the Zep catalog, though nothing really hit me outside of No Quarter.
And I have listened to the Zep catalog, though nothing really hit me outside of No Quarter.
So you are willing to listen to a random person's "facts" about Led Zep and spout it elsewhere as fact without doing any research on it. That right there discredits pretty much any point you can make from here on out as it shows you don't research what you talk about.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
I invite you to find another problem in my research.
I do not care for Led Zepplin.
I saw and see no reason to research them beyond what I already had, there were other, more interesting people such as Philip Glass to look into.
By far out of this entire thread, I highly doubt that anyone has done any research into the evolution of music as I have. Thus statements such as "Bruce Haack is not remembered" would not be made. Nothing Beatles related I have said is either false, or taken from 'some random person' but is based on musical history.
I do not care for Led Zepplin.
I saw and see no reason to research them beyond what I already had, there were other, more interesting people such as Philip Glass to look into.
By far out of this entire thread, I highly doubt that anyone has done any research into the evolution of music as I have. Thus statements such as "Bruce Haack is not remembered" would not be made. Nothing Beatles related I have said is either false, or taken from 'some random person' but is based on musical history.
Then why'd you say that they formed in Seattle if you can't even remember what he said?
Also, thank you for those MR.
T-major
Smash Champion
thats what I said.
:|
yeah. in EUROPE. the Beatles led the way for those bands becoming popular in AMERICA. in a completely different country and continent. if it wasn't for the Beatles, these bands would have likely stayed in Europe, and had very little popularity outside of Europe, save for the small percent of people who look into foreign music.
Music in America was changed because of them. people's tastes changed because of these bands; and when peoples tastes change, the music they make changes with it. it blatantly obvious how the British invasion effected American music development, and the Beatles are to thank for that.
are you f'ing kidding me? what about Neo-Classical Metal? a sub-genre of heavy metal which is notable for being heavily influenced by Classical music. obviously those musicians are influenced by music from the past...
Led Zeppelin is several times more influential than anyone you've used as an example. Jimmy Page and John Bonham are consistently viewed as being two of the most influential musicians in rock history. as far as I'm concerned, every point you've tried to make just lost all meaning.
you should have, because now you just look like a douche. :|
anyways, I'm done with you. I'm convinced you're trolling us anyways, because there's no way you could have expected people to agree with you, or to change anyones opinion. especially with your poor arguments. all thats left is that you wanted to get a reaction from everyone.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
At MR, that was there producer. Not them. Crediting them with that is like awarding Ben Stiller director of the year for his performance in Miss Doubtfire.
And pop culture is not musical form.
Frank Zappa was already making rock music.
Rock bands already existed in America.
They did nothing but give record companies reason to promote and formulate these rock bands.
America in music continued to develop in the exact same way it had before The Beatles became large in American music.
The music of the past effects music, but not the music being popular in the past. That is a completely separate thing. Popularity is not a sign either way on how influential something will be.
Also, again, the discrediting of Bruce Haack, Frank Zappa, and King Tubby is horribly wrong.
And pop culture is not musical form.
Music business changed because of them.
Frank Zappa was already making rock music.
Rock bands already existed in America.
They did nothing but give record companies reason to promote and formulate these rock bands.
America in music continued to develop in the exact same way it had before The Beatles became large in American music.
What you fail to note is that Mozart was not the popular artist of his time. There was another movement of people who stayed with Baroque music, these were the popular artist of the decade. Mozart became popular a large time after his death, and his influence effected musicians that too would not become to what we would consider popular for some time.
The music of the past effects music, but not the music being popular in the past. That is a completely separate thing. Popularity is not a sign either way on how influential something will be.
I said nothing about their influence, I said I did not care for them.
Also, again, the discrediting of Bruce Haack, Frank Zappa, and King Tubby is horribly wrong.
Every single argument I have made is valid, founded, and has been respectful to those who like The Beatles. You have in no way provided any examples, nor shown me any respect.
What? These are like not-so-subtle hints. If you're just having fun getting a rise out of us, props. But otherwise, yikes.
Your argument here is that had the Beatles not become popular in America, we would still have the same music today?
You've been given many examples about how your arguments (namely that the Beatles were in no way influential) are unfounded and invalid. You have a very narrow-minded definition of "influential" that only seems to fit Mozart, Zappa, King Tubby, and whoever else you decide to namedrop. You're entitled to this, just know that it's not the correct definition.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
No. My point was you can't give them credit for their producers work. Which is what one of those articles was basically doing.
Yes. When you look at what was going on in the underground music scene, folk music gradually becoming darker, electronic music changing as well, and rock n roll becoming heavier, then you see that this progression was natural, with or without The Beatles. Music was already evolving the way it is today.
I invite you to look at the music of Frank Zappa, and know he had been making music like this since the 50s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAKOlsEa_zs
No. It is the correct definition.
To be influential in music, you must change something in musical form, not things around music. I have already given several examples of how The Beatles neither introduced new musical forms nor advance previous ones.
And the only unfounded thing I have brought up is the Zep fact, which is not something I have either looked into, nor care about, and is pretty irrelevant to the argument about The Beatles.
Masmasher@
Smash Lord
Has any noticed that its not the beatles day anymore... its boring *** september 16. also i think hes saying that they didnt do anything music wise that is innovative. Though they did introduce their music to the US.
My point was that Ben Stiller wasn't in Mrs. Doubtfire
I've listened to Frank Zappa before, I like his music. But to say that had the Beatles not come to America, we would have the same music today is just wrong.
I don't think it's worth debating this, as we have different criteria for what constitutes as "influential."
I will, however, give you one more example of how the Beatles influenced music.
The song "Paint It, Black" by the Rolling Stones has a sitar in it. It was released (and recorded) in 1966. The song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" by the Beatles also employs use of the sitar. It was released (and recorded) in 1965. The Beatles, namely George Harrison, were one of the (if not the) first western bands to incorporate eastern music into their songs.
From the "Paint It, Black" Wiki page
I hadn't looked at the calendar! Thank you for your insightful post!
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
Wrong person. I meant Robin Williams.
Despite similar things already going on in the music scene?
This is a case of peer techniques sharing. This has not become standard or normal in pop or rock in anyway. It is comparable to the inspiration of the Glass Harmonica that Bach had from another artist, but regardless, the Glass Harmonica in no way affects modern music.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
He is a lot of things, but he is most known for his many, many ragee bands he played in over the years, and his pioneering in the genre Dub, which later led to Drum and Bass music.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
Yes I do, Excuse my spelling and typing, both are by far my weakest point.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
The Beatles were known to work with George Martin for HOURS in the studio. His "work" was just as much their work. He was often called the 5th Beatle because his work in the studio was just as deep as theirs, but the other guys contributed too.
You keep mentioning influential bands, yet you ignore THE most influential band in Rock music today--King Crimson. Robert Fripp has taught more and influenced TONS of musicians including Kurt Cobain, Dream Theater, and Steve Vai, who in turn have influenced many, many others. He created New Standard Tuning, and Frippertronics is his invention. Oh, and they are credited with creating Progressive Rock. Not innovating it CREATING it. So, to deny King Crimson is one of the most innovative and influential bands ever means you do not know music.
With that in mind:
What the? THE most influential band in rock history liked the Beatles and rooted itself in one of their most famous stages of psychedelic rock and enjoyed them SO much that they covered them? Wow... Also, KC was released Starless and Bible Black, featuring some of their better known songs of the 70s after being influenced by the Beatles.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
wait. . . what xD I wasn't saying anything about King Crimson, nor did I deny their influence at all. I'll look them up, but I'm fairly certain that Zappa was making the music before them.
And getting covers done of you is not what I would call influential xD
EDIT- 1969
Yep, a no go.
Not dening their influence.
The artist I picked to discuss and use as examples were all making music around the same time The Beatles were. Bruce Haack, Frank Zappa, Ike Turner, and King Tubby all made their music either starting in the 50s and continuing through the life span of The Beatles, or appeared around the same time as The Beatles.
King Crimson does not fit this.
And getting covers done of you is not what I would call influential xD
EDIT- 1969
Yep, a no go.
Not dening their influence.
The artist I picked to discuss and use as examples were all making music around the same time The Beatles were. Bruce Haack, Frank Zappa, Ike Turner, and King Tubby all made their music either starting in the 50s and continuing through the life span of The Beatles, or appeared around the same time as The Beatles.
King Crimson does not fit this.
Yo Crimson King, I'm really happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but the Beatles had one of the best influences of all time.
You see me trollin', they hatin'...
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Yeah, I am convinced you are just an idiot. I cite an exact contradiction to your argument, and you blow it off? The fact that an ALBUM by KC was inspired by The Beatles, and along with a song they wrote was a direct homage to them, goes ignored proves you are just a troll who wants to be different. Instead of refuting all my points, you just look up whether or not Zappa was making music first, which is irrelevant.
Also, The Yardbirds were making music before Zappa, so I guess they are much more influential than he is because that is the basis of your argument. The Yardbirds featuring Eric Clapton, that is.
I'm actually ashamed you are a debater.
Frank West
Smash Apprentice
Really now. Can't we all just get along and hate Coldplay instead?
As much as this makes me lol, I enjoy Coldplay. <.<
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Ah, Coldplay, a 3rd-Rate Radiohead.
very very true. mainstream is in a horrible state
imo
I'm not going to defend Coldplay as the greatest band on the world or anything, but I really enjoy their music and they put on one hell of a live show.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
Crimson King, covering a song is not showing an artist as influential. I have already stated and proven that The Beatles have no changes musical form. You still resuse to believe so despite not being able to show me any examples of a single musical form created, nor enhanced by The Beatles.
Secondly, The Yardbirds founded in 1962, which was the same year Zappa released his soundtrack to The World's Greatest Sinner in 1962.
You brought up an escape argument of Crimson King and claimed that because I did not include them in my argument that I did not know music. I then explained why I did not include or mention them, because they were beyond the time period of my examples. You ESPECIALLY have the audacity to claim that I do not know music when you claimed that Ike Turner, Bruce Haack, Frank Zappa, and the most important figure in 20th century European Classical music are not remembered?
I also call into question the "They liked The Beatles" argument.
Animal Collective, one of the leaders of the Freak Folk movement and now the electronic Future Shock movement have stated their enjoyment of Michale Jackson's Thriller, so that means that Michale Jackson has influenced Folk music? No, it doesn't.
I'm ashamed you mod the debate hall, when you completely ignore the arguments I make, and bring up completely erroneous examples of musical business when I have largely stated it is their influence in musical forms that I call into question.
IT'S ONLY lNFLUENCIAL IF IT'S FIRST GUYS
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
Again, I have stated beyond this as well, stating that its influential if it enhances or validates a musical form, and have clarified what both of these mean in an earlier post.