View Single Post
Old 01-19-2011, 09:53 PM   #12 (permalink)
clutnuckle
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: -_-_-_-_~__~-~_-`_`-~_-`-~-~
Posts: 1,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaligojurah View Post
Look, I'm not saying the Beatles are Partch, AMM, Cage, or Varese here. I am saying that they dug deep to the absolute bottom of obscurity to present what they were doing. Whether it was original or not, they were drastically different than the mainstream pop acts 20-30 years from when they started in their post-Revolver. Where as Gaga at the moment is stunningly similar to mainstream pop acts 20-30 years before now. Therefore, in comparison, deserve some consideration.
"Absolute bottom of obscurity"... How exactly is what they did the 'absolute bottom' when you've just stated four artists who have gone beyond what they did experimentally? And those are just general experimentalists... Plenty of other rock bands of the era still went far beyond The Beatles' level of experimentation. The absolute bottom they are not.

Also, plenty of psychedelic sixties bands had a similar sound to The Beatles. Many of them were also very popular. A few years later even, many bands started the whole psychedelic-rock flare up again in a commercial setting, mimicking many of The Beatles' trademarks and getting plenty of recognition for it. Perhaps not at the Beatles level of success, but they were being heard, and it's also not fair to bring popularity too deeply into this as Beatlemania did most of the work for them. Thus, they really weren't drastically different from many other pop acts at all. In the late 60s, many artists got famous off of The Beatles' rush and nobody really even cared about the mild differences in between the two artists.

To claim that The Beatles deserve a place in history for doing half of what other musicians of the time did, except while in a spotlight, is really demeaning to those who actually went the extra mile. I was reading a section of a history book the other day actually, that talked about the rock music of the 50s and 60s in order to show how it affected the people of the time, and all it could really discuss was their popularity. The utter RIOTS they created among fans. Mind you this same book had an entire section devoted to how Stravinsky's Rite of Spring made people go bonkers based off of its visceral, shocking performance. Whether or not The Beatles deserve it is up to you to decide, but they're easily going down in history as a successful band, and not one that inherently pushed any envelope.
clutnuckle is offline   Reply With Quote