Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
Around and around it goes. First you demand that the Beatles not be considered pop because they're so "experimental". Then, when I point out artists from their era or before who were much more experimental, you retreat back into "Beatles as pop innovators" territory. This shifting of goal posts and definitions seems to be a hallmark of conversations about the Beatles status, sadly. It would be great if people could simple say they were a good band who made some great pop music and leave it that instead of trying to make the argument that they were magical beings who shat rainbows.
|
Honestly you don't get what I am saying. The Beatles were pop but at the same time were extremely experimental and yes you can be both at the same time though it's not an easy thing to do.
There are things Sun Ra did that the Beatles didn't do but at the same time Sun Ra didn't do things the Beatles did. In the end you might not like hearing this but the things the Beatles did reached more people than Sun Ra did and frankly Frank Zappa who was a satirical composer and not really a songwriter IMO. I remember reading how members of the Velvet Underground poking fun at Zappa at the Beatles beating him at his own game.
It's reality the Beatles have influenced more musicians than your so-called underground groups is because the Beatles had the right combination of melody, song structure and experimenation. If you think Sun Ra has influenced more musicians than the Beatles or more innovative you are sadly mistaken. Do me a favor read the link below maybe you might get what I am saying.
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/..._Odyssey.shtml