CRASHiC
Smash Hero
Which apparently means profiting by selling a bunch of stupid things.
Some claim the first heavy rock song
Not true. Frank Zappa had been doing heavy rock for a while
Some claim that they are the origins of samples on records
SO WRONG
SO HORRIBLY WRONG
First off, sampled based music had been going on long before The Beatles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71hNl_skTZQ
1958 was when that song was written, and it shows more advance sampling techniques than what the beatles showed.
At the time of The Beatles, King Tubby was also doing much more expansive sampling than simple loops
Beatles founded modern day electronical music
Again, wrong. Most of that goes to Bruce Haack, and pieces, way, way earlier than The Beatles, most modern day synths were invented by the man who wrote the music for Bugs Bunny back in the 1930s.
Beatles founded recording your own songs that you wrote
Again, wrong. Ike Turner
If there is anything I have not adressed here, please bring it up.
The Beatles are remembered for being The Beatles.
And shame on you, for thinking that King Tubby, Ike Turner, Bruce Haack, and Frank Zappa aren't remembered. That's just ignorant. King Tubby is a ragge and dub legend. Frank Zappa is continually becoming a larger, and larger entity in music, and Bruce Haack has a documentary about him. Clearly they are remembered.
Because the music of Ike and Tina Turner is not popular?
Watch yourself, its horible debating to simple claim that I attack them for their popularity, and makes your side looked polarized.
And The Beach Boys have more protest songs than The Beatles, incase having a 'message' is your argument for making music that 'matters'
For instance, a little known act right now in America is Lykke Li, and then I was very surprised to see comment on a forum about how he can't go a school lunch without someone talking about how they either love or hate her. Musical popularity, like high school popularity, is only relevant.
Another example would be Aphex Twin and Dan Deacon, two huge, godly figures in Electronical right now, who those outside of electronical know close to nothing about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Az_7U0-cK0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFlBJ1xZK10
I always lol when I hear this.
To legitimize something is to make it viable for use, not make it to where a large portion of people actually know about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Pbyg_kcEk
Here we see Circut bending, a new technique that seemed exciting, but useless at the time this short doc was made.
Flashforward two years latter, Chris Clark makes an album based almost entirely off Circut bending, and is an incredible hit in the dance scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijE0qwusOzM
That is legitimizing something. Its taking a technique and finding a proper use for it. Its not making it popular.
Also, making something popular is not innovation mind you.
Not true, because very few of these listeners expanded their listening to these techniques. How many people from this generation claim that hip-hop and drum and bass don't write music because they sample? Clearly, when they sampled, they did not reach people with the sampling. Other wise in these people eyes, it would have been legitimized.
And as for the remasteres, they aren't even fully remixed and remastered.
No, no they aren't, because they are claimed to have innovated music, when they had done no such thing.
My issue is that they are claimed to be innovators, when they had done no innovating whatsoever in their music, without improving on the techniques that they wished to employ at all.
For advancing music, and not music business, they did very little.
Not true at all. Music existed long before it became the large business we have today. Classical music did not fall out of style, it has the same listening pool as it had many years ago. Back then, musicians were not supported by patrons. Music flourished then, without the billions of people in the music industry today. Back then, music was supported by the nobles as patrons to musicians. Also, your point does in no way disprove my point that The Beatles were in fact not influential to music, but rather to music business
Secondly, Ike Turner and Tina Turner are not popular?
And I suppose you'd say the same thing about Damon Albarn and Aphex Twin in today's music too :L
Popularity is in no way an argument for a bands quality, originality, or influence in music any more than it is against it.
In fact, not only have I discouraged others from talking and arguing about taste in this thread, but I myself have been attacked for an opinion on which I had not even stated.
As seen below-
And even then,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZazEM8cgt0
And even then, music can survive and thrive without the business aspect, as it had before record companies.
I bring you Animal Collective, who the members said in an interview that they were inspired to make music by Michale Jackson's Thriller, which is about as far from their music catalog as you can get. Someone may spark your interest in something, but it does not mean they were an influence on your work.
For reference, this is Animal Collective, whose sound is much more folk and Beach Boys driven than anything put out by Michale Jackson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_leV7zskgw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxhaRgJUMl8
Here we see that despite the group's initial interest in Michale Jackson, there music (music being the only thing that matters in music) is in no way inspired by his works.
Also, inspiring people to make music doesn't make you influential to music itself. The structure of music must be changed in some manner, and nearly all of these 'first' (none of which were actually first) that The Beatles introduced were either already established in music, or see no use in the rock or pop genres that they are so hailed for pioneering.
This 'celebration day' for the Beatles was nothing more than a day to hype and sell half *** material. For instance, the 'remasters' are not fully remix, making the entire point of a remaster to make the music clearer pointless.
The Beatles Rock Band release is another example.
The Beatles are continually used as a money bank,
http://www.hollywoodmegastore.com/Images/1109_John_Lennon_18_Talking_Action_Figure.jpg
"Its what John would have wanted" my ***.
There are many other bands that I feel are over praised, many that I actually like, but the level at which The Beatles are peddled to the public is of a ridiculous amount, and no one seems ready to dare question the words that are used to advertise them and make them seem so important.
And again, musical popularity is like high school popularity, its subjective to the group you are in.
Lyrics are actually apart of literature, though I'd have to go very deep description onto my thoughts about hip-hop, about how I feel the syllables are in truth apart of the music in the same way different strokes and accents are to a drum, but that's a topic for another time xD
What I meant by that statement was that even if someone inspired you to do something initially, even if someone changes the culture surrounding something, that only the musical significance matters. Influential is not necessarily inspiring something, but changing something in the fundamentals of music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QAqJAfBjN8
Here we see a song that single handedly put an entire musical genre (breakcore) into legitimacy (more so in countries where electronic music is more main stream as opposed to America). It was inspired off the architecture and land of Turkey. Does that mean that the natural land of Turkey is influential to music? No, but the creator of this music is largely so.
Sure, compared to their old quality, they are amazing, but compared to todays standards or remastering, the quality is rather poor and the amount of work minimal.
I could find you several people who have never heard or could name a single Beatles song.
Excuse me? This level of ignorance?
First off, as I have stated before, popularity is in no way an argument.
Secondly, The people who you listed would have made music with, or without The Beatles.
Those bans had been playing for quite some time. Simply because The Beatles allowed America to become aware of what was going on in the British music scene does not mean they were influential. It means they were popular. All of the groups would still have made music had the invasion not occurred. In fact, if you knew your history, you would know that The Beatles were made big in America. Before their music had reached our shores, talk began about The Beatles on the radio and TV, and a huge marketing campaign was launched.
Secondly, Led Zepplin is not part of The British Invasion.
They didn't premear until 2 years after the invasion took place.
Also, I'd rather appreciate it that you would not attack my music taste, since I have shown the same respect in this thread for The Beatles fans.
Speaking of this thread, someone tried to argue with me that The Beatles invented Ska. That was invented in Jamaica.
Some claim the first heavy rock song
Not true. Frank Zappa had been doing heavy rock for a while
Some claim that they are the origins of samples on records
SO WRONG
SO HORRIBLY WRONG
First off, sampled based music had been going on long before The Beatles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71hNl_skTZQ
1958 was when that song was written, and it shows more advance sampling techniques than what the beatles showed.
At the time of The Beatles, King Tubby was also doing much more expansive sampling than simple loops
Beatles founded modern day electronical music
Again, wrong. Most of that goes to Bruce Haack, and pieces, way, way earlier than The Beatles, most modern day synths were invented by the man who wrote the music for Bugs Bunny back in the 1930s.
Beatles founded recording your own songs that you wrote
Again, wrong. Ike Turner
If there is anything I have not adressed here, please bring it up.
Which was? That they were popular?? That they were in movies?? They didn't do anything different really. They are remembered because they represent a generation, and because John Lenon was died. They got credit for doing nothing, literally. They got praised for saying "We write love songs, so all our songs our love songs." People completely ignore that that is a complete cop out.
The Beatles are remembered for being The Beatles.
And shame on you, for thinking that King Tubby, Ike Turner, Bruce Haack, and Frank Zappa aren't remembered. That's just ignorant. King Tubby is a ragge and dub legend. Frank Zappa is continually becoming a larger, and larger entity in music, and Bruce Haack has a documentary about him. Clearly they are remembered.
That's an industry, that's not music, that's business.
Because the music of Ike and Tina Turner is not popular?
Watch yourself, its horible debating to simple claim that I attack them for their popularity, and makes your side looked polarized.
Music is just notes.
And The Beach Boys have more protest songs than The Beatles, incase having a 'message' is your argument for making music that 'matters'
Don't assume because you have never heard of it that it must be obscure. There are other scenes out side of what you are aware mind you. King Tubby is by no means obscure, and is incredibly well known to anyone who listens to Raggee.
For instance, a little known act right now in America is Lykke Li, and then I was very surprised to see comment on a forum about how he can't go a school lunch without someone talking about how they either love or hate her. Musical popularity, like high school popularity, is only relevant.
Another example would be Aphex Twin and Dan Deacon, two huge, godly figures in Electronical right now, who those outside of electronical know close to nothing about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Az_7U0-cK0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFlBJ1xZK10
I always lol when I hear this.
To legitimize something is to make it viable for use, not make it to where a large portion of people actually know about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Pbyg_kcEk
Here we see Circut bending, a new technique that seemed exciting, but useless at the time this short doc was made.
Flashforward two years latter, Chris Clark makes an album based almost entirely off Circut bending, and is an incredible hit in the dance scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijE0qwusOzM
That is legitimizing something. Its taking a technique and finding a proper use for it. Its not making it popular.
Also, making something popular is not innovation mind you.
In terms of innovation, yes. Its good for a history major, but it doesn't do anything to progress music.
Not true, because very few of these listeners expanded their listening to these techniques. How many people from this generation claim that hip-hop and drum and bass don't write music because they sample? Clearly, when they sampled, they did not reach people with the sampling. Other wise in these people eyes, it would have been legitimized.
Because people flock to be apart of something. Not claiming all fans, but people are pack animals by nature, and sadly, I doubt that few people who listen to any kind of music are truly listening to the music, and are just enjoying the social sense it gives us. Its why breaking into a foreign music scene can be so hard
Because people flock to be apart of something.
And as for the remasteres, they aren't even fully remixed and remastered.
No, because their image is still pushed 40 years on. Frank Zappa has not had any image pushed by anyone other than him, his wife, and his son, yet continues to have increasing popularity.
No, no they aren't, because they are claimed to have innovated music, when they had done no such thing.
I have already discourage others from talking about like or dislike in this thread.
My issue is that they are claimed to be innovators, when they had done no innovating whatsoever in their music, without improving on the techniques that they wished to employ at all.
Again, you talk about business and culture. Not music.
For advancing music, and not music business, they did very little.
Not true at all. Music existed long before it became the large business we have today. Classical music did not fall out of style, it has the same listening pool as it had many years ago. Back then, musicians were not supported by patrons. Music flourished then, without the billions of people in the music industry today. Back then, music was supported by the nobles as patrons to musicians. Also, your point does in no way disprove my point that The Beatles were in fact not influential to music, but rather to music business
First off, I have said nothing about good or bad in this thread. I am showing that The Beatles did not 'shape modern music' as a lot of people blindly claim.
Secondly, Ike Turner and Tina Turner are not popular?
And I suppose you'd say the same thing about Damon Albarn and Aphex Twin in today's music too :L
Popularity is in no way an argument for a bands quality, originality, or influence in music any more than it is against it.
In fact, not only have I discouraged others from talking and arguing about taste in this thread, but I myself have been attacked for an opinion on which I had not even stated.
As seen below-
Any claims that The Beatles have influenced and changed music are simply unfounded and wrong.
I meant long, long ago, before the music business. The days of Mozart and Beethoven.
And even then,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZazEM8cgt0
And even then, music can survive and thrive without the business aspect, as it had before record companies.
What about the statement? It says that previously, musicians were supported by rich patrons who payed for them to be musicians. Its the same for painters and writers of the age.
I also pointed out that not only where they not the first to do something, but that they also did not legitimize it or advance the said technique.
I highly doubt this. The Beatles are a gravy train, and to say you were inspired by The Beatles is a very good marketing ploy. Also, while you may be inspired to write music by someone, that does not necissary mean that your music is at all influenced by them.
I bring you Animal Collective, who the members said in an interview that they were inspired to make music by Michale Jackson's Thriller, which is about as far from their music catalog as you can get. Someone may spark your interest in something, but it does not mean they were an influence on your work.
For reference, this is Animal Collective, whose sound is much more folk and Beach Boys driven than anything put out by Michale Jackson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_leV7zskgw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxhaRgJUMl8
Here we see that despite the group's initial interest in Michale Jackson, there music (music being the only thing that matters in music) is in no way inspired by his works.
Also, inspiring people to make music doesn't make you influential to music itself. The structure of music must be changed in some manner, and nearly all of these 'first' (none of which were actually first) that The Beatles introduced were either already established in music, or see no use in the rock or pop genres that they are so hailed for pioneering.
My quaril was not with the band, but with the media that surrounds them.
This 'celebration day' for the Beatles was nothing more than a day to hype and sell half *** material. For instance, the 'remasters' are not fully remix, making the entire point of a remaster to make the music clearer pointless.
The Beatles Rock Band release is another example.
The Beatles are continually used as a money bank,
http://www.hollywoodmegastore.com/Images/1109_John_Lennon_18_Talking_Action_Figure.jpg
"Its what John would have wanted" my ***.
There are many other bands that I feel are over praised, many that I actually like, but the level at which The Beatles are peddled to the public is of a ridiculous amount, and no one seems ready to dare question the words that are used to advertise them and make them seem so important.
And again, musical popularity is like high school popularity, its subjective to the group you are in.
Actually, production is a part of the music, deeply so. Music is sounds, and bad production can ruin a song the same a bad playing tone could.
Lyrics are actually apart of literature, though I'd have to go very deep description onto my thoughts about hip-hop, about how I feel the syllables are in truth apart of the music in the same way different strokes and accents are to a drum, but that's a topic for another time xD
What I meant by that statement was that even if someone inspired you to do something initially, even if someone changes the culture surrounding something, that only the musical significance matters. Influential is not necessarily inspiring something, but changing something in the fundamentals of music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QAqJAfBjN8
Here we see a song that single handedly put an entire musical genre (breakcore) into legitimacy (more so in countries where electronic music is more main stream as opposed to America). It was inspired off the architecture and land of Turkey. Does that mean that the natural land of Turkey is influential to music? No, but the creator of this music is largely so.
The remasters, that is what is half *****.
Sure, compared to their old quality, they are amazing, but compared to todays standards or remastering, the quality is rather poor and the amount of work minimal.
To your group.
I could find you several people who have never heard or could name a single Beatles song.
Excuse me? This level of ignorance?
First off, as I have stated before, popularity is in no way an argument.
Secondly, The people who you listed would have made music with, or without The Beatles.
Those bans had been playing for quite some time. Simply because The Beatles allowed America to become aware of what was going on in the British music scene does not mean they were influential. It means they were popular. All of the groups would still have made music had the invasion not occurred. In fact, if you knew your history, you would know that The Beatles were made big in America. Before their music had reached our shores, talk began about The Beatles on the radio and TV, and a huge marketing campaign was launched.
Secondly, Led Zepplin is not part of The British Invasion.
They didn't premear until 2 years after the invasion took place.
Again, if you would read you would see this has nothing to do with likes, dislikes, or opinions. It has to do with bringing up many of the large misconceptions about The Beatles influence, not in culture, not in history, but in music, to which is greatly overstated.
Also, I'd rather appreciate it that you would not attack my music taste, since I have shown the same respect in this thread for The Beatles fans.
Speaking of this thread, someone tried to argue with me that The Beatles invented Ska. That was invented in Jamaica.
