So why go with Paul McCartney as the King of Pop?
(That choice seem kinda bandwagonish.)

I always wondered whether The Beatles were lucky being at the right place at the right time or whether that they earned it, so I'm open for discussion about Paul McCartney (not falling into either camp of idol worship or hater) - I like to see both sides of the issue. Some people feel the momentum behind The Beatles as being hailed the greatest Rock Band of all time is public opinion - the industry gave them an unfair advantage. So in their opinion even if they achieved chart success it was due to the music industry manipulation of public opinion. Other feel The Beatles were geniuses especially Paul and John and they would go down in history as Beethoven or Mozart of their time. I on the other hand prefer J.S. Bach over Beethoven or Mozart.

I said in an earlier post I did this thread to show how silly it was people saying, as if it's unquestionable, that Michael Jackson is the 'king of pop'. There are obviously others who it could be argued are at least as good and arguably better.

I don't think it matters if people think The Beatles are the 'greatest' or not, but I think they are virtually undeniably very good and among the best. Making comparisons to some others can be interesting though, as it helps focus on the music apart from other aspects which dominate pop music in modern times.

And I don't think there has been a Bach, Beethoven or Mozart of modern times, the musical environment as it is probably wouldn't produce one.

I don't care for Michael Jackson, imo he is everything wrong with (mainstream / Top 40) Pop and I think he help ruin it, but I understand there are people out there who idol worship him and think he's the greatest.

Paul McCartney has a better chance than most to be remember for his skill as a songwriter/composer, he wrote some memorable melodies, and if you broke down the basic element of Art Music you have the melody (that's oversimplifying it a bit) but that is what the more well-known composers noted for like J.S. Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven or Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky they are known for are the memorable melodies they composed. I don't put composers of art music on so high a pedestal to think only they can compose music, even though it's structurally different, what Paul wrote is just as good. There is no predicting the future, whether generations from now will listen to even care about Art Music or Rock n Roll music no one really knows. So predicting Paul McCartney will be noted as the Mozart of the 20th century is a bit tenuous for not knowing what the future will hold.

McCartney has done some good music and melodies. But I think when comparing him to the very greatest (to most people) classical composers they just did such an amazing amount of good stuff. The environment they were in demanded they compose a great deal of music and the style was more limited in the baroque and classical period so they had to concentrate in depth in a particular style. That's why I don't think you can compare to them, their genius evolved in a particular way because of the situation they were in. Tchaikovsky, who you mention, who was from much later, might be a better comparison as he wasn't as prolific and was very melodic. I still like to compare people more who are in the same kind of music though and McCartney hasn't for instance composed symphonies, concertos and ballets (longer forms of music) so it isn't that easy to compare even to Tchaikovsky.

I disagree that the "Classical" composers were the greatest, the greatest composer when considering Art Music was during the Baroque period: J.S. Bach. Maybe most (or some) people feel the greatest composers were from the Classical period because of Mozart and Beethoven, and maybe that harkens back to what you said "People feel security in going with what they are told rather than daring to actually question something." Most people if asked who was the greatest composer will undoubtedly say Mozart.

The idea The Beatles will be remembered as the Beethoven of their time is something I've heard before - a few times actually. The last time I heard it was a few days ago when my friend brought up while talking about music. It was not my own observation but there are some thing I like to think about and wonder how possible (or true) such a statement is. It would be interesting (but impossible) to know what music is appreciated in the future. I guess people say stuff like that because of the momentum of people enjoying Beatles' music has continue now but there is always a possible of it dieing out because of various reasons. You can be big-headed, and say, “Yeah, The Beatles will be remembered and endeared by music fans a 100 years from now.” But as soon as you’ve said that, you think, “You know, they're lucky if they last three generations.”

The comparison was not between the structural similarities of a composition (e.g. a symphony) and a pop song. It's how popular they are and the contributions they made, the impacted they had on music in their own time and generations afterwards. It's amazing to me how many artist and bands have done cover-songs of The Beatles and the list is impressive. But then again I guess there are people who don't appreciate The Beatles and in turn wouldn't give any credibility to Rock bands, Pop artist, orchestras, Jazz musicians etc. doing covers of Beatles songs.

i don't even put much cred on composition or spending ages to creating a masterpiece

my idea of a masterpiece is improvisation, where upon the first take, you create magic, or free jazz, where you invariably stumble upon greatness

I have to agree with you on that one!

When I said classical I meant classical music in general and not specifically the classical style, so I did include JS Bach in that.

People love to make comparisons but I wonder if there comes a point where comparisons aren't so useful. As I said the societies in which these different types of music were created were completely different, the way music was made and the expectations of the audience were completely different. Sometimes all I can really judge on is how many good pieces of music I think someone has done, particularly when comparing things outside of their genres.



And as for improvisation well classical art music wasn't just playing the notes on the page, they had to be brought to life in live performance with the personal interpretation of the performers. Mozart for example didn't write down all the embellishments he might put into a performance. There also developed cadenzas sometimes which could be even more improvised. And even in jazz most of it isn't completely improvised, a structure with themes and chords is often laid out beforehand anyway

That is true about anything in music, you can even say that in regards to The Beatles. What they meant in their own time and what they mean now are entirely different. Even the art music that has survived and is played today has changed its audience over the course of the few hundred years since it first was created.

You are totally missing the point, of course it's not a apples to apples comparison that is clear, saying that about The Beatles was to draw a conclusion for the purpose of showing their importance - when considering both creativity and popularity.

I think there is a big difference between something written 40 years ago and something wrote 300 years ago, the whole world has changed in the way music is produced and consumed.

'Importance' is a very subjective term, popularity rises and falls with fashion. Mozart for example wasn't so popular in the second half of the 19th century. So I'd rather just base it on how much good music I think someone has done irrespective of fashion or anything else.