Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Philosophy of Lennon and McCartney
Topic Started: Sep 5 2005, 10:44 AM (844 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Fesarius
Sep 16 2005, 01:24 PM
Quote:
 
... but I tend to believe that the level of following has more to do with the times they lived more so then their music.

This is where the test of time comes in, and it is something we can't get a grasp on until more time has passed.

That I agree with.

Quote:
 
But, some of the facts (short-term) are that they had four no. 1 albums in the 1990s, had the top-selling album of the year 2000, and are mentioned and scrutinized (as good music ought to be) in scholarly publications worldwide.  Something to think about. ;)

While that is a great accomplishment, that does not preclude the idea that it is the movement and not the talent that got them where they are. Your generation is still alive and well (and have most of the money), so it could still be the movement that causes these sentiments.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Fesarius
Sep 16 2005, 12:14 PM
It is not an 'opinion' of mine when they state what their favorite group is year in and year out either. This is why they are doing the papers on them. But it is wrong to say 'Cos it only exists for those that were teens in the moment.' That's ridiculous, and inaccurate.

That doesnt mean that they are their favourite band.


Also in college, the best way to ensure a good mark on an essay / report is to take a stance on an argument you feel your lecturer would agree with, I suspect a similar situation would happen with music assignments, I think you'll find a fair few of them are just sucking up
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Dandandat
Sep 16 2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:
 
But, some of the facts (short-term) are that they had four no. 1 albums in the 1990s, had the top-selling album of the year 2000, and are mentioned and scrutinized (as good music ought to be) in scholarly publications worldwide.  Something to think about. ;)

While that is a great accomplishment, that does not preclude the idea that it is the movement and not the talent that got them where they are. Your generation is still alive and well (and have most of the money), so it could still be the movement that causes these sentiments.

And dont forget that from the late 90s, the younger generation started working out the true benefits of the Internet, and didnt figure as much in album sales demographics
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
captain_proton_au
Sep 16 2005, 01:37 PM
Dandandat
Sep 16 2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:
 
But, some of the facts (short-term) are that they had four no. 1 albums in the 1990s, had the top-selling album of the year 2000, and are mentioned and scrutinized (as good music ought to be) in scholarly publications worldwide.  Something to think about. ;)

While that is a great accomplishment, that does not preclude the idea that it is the movement and not the talent that got them where they are. Your generation is still alive and well (and have most of the money), so it could still be the movement that causes these sentiments.

And dont forget that from the late 90s, the younger generation started working out the true benefits of the Internet, and didnt figure as much in album sales demographics

Or the fact that quantity of selection is much higher for newer bands, lessening their chance to gain a large following.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Scotty,

The test of time is one of the best criteria for judging such things. Pop and rock are still in their infancy. The music of the Fab Four has stood the test of time remarkably well to this point (the 1990s info. is a case in point), and will (IMO) stand the test of time for all time. It is also not an opinion of mine that their music continues to be dissected in High School, College, and University courses. And theses and dissertations are written on their output for a reason. One of these reasons is because the music is good enough to be dissected at a variety of levels. This cannot be said of lesser musics (you may fill in the blank). In music, you cannot fake being pretentious. You either have it, or you don't.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Fesarius
Sep 16 2005, 02:02 PM
It is also not an opinion of mine that their music continues to be dissected in High School, College, and University courses. And theses and dissertations are written on their output for a reason.

Who are the teachers and prophesiers? Most likely members of your generation, it is only logical that they would turn to music they like to teach about music. If they liked this music because of a movement the out come would be the same (ei it would be taught in schools)

Quote:
 
One of these reasons is because the music is good enough to be dissected at a variety of levels.  This cannot be said of lesser musics (you may fill in the blank).  In music, you cannot fake being pretentious.  You either have it, or you don't.
I would never agree that their music isn't good, I do believe it is worth dissecting at a variety of levels. But the same can be said for a lot of music that is not because it does not have the Icon status.

You fill in the blanks, are their any bands today that you think are good enough to stand the test of time?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

I've heard from a few musos, that speed/thrash metal is the hardest to play, the musicians that play it are amongst some of the most technically proficient.

Some of these tunes, while not for everyone, are pretty damn catchy.


Are the Beatles better musicians, better songwriters than say a band like Metallica
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Most likely members of your generation....

Scotty,

No, they are not of my generation. The teachers of music at my university are in their twenties, and one is in his thirties. I know of no music teacher of my generation that teaches these courses--not a one. This is a valid point you make (albeit indirectly).

Quote:
 
But the same can be said for a lot of music that is not because it does not have the Icon status.

No, it can't. Show me some that can (without going back to Schubert or before that time). Icon status (as you put it) is irrelevant. Again, one cannot fake being pretentious. The material is there for all to see, and for all to dissect. Otherwise, Madonna (and others of that ilk) would have her/their music studied and analyzed voraciously.

Quote:
 
You fill in the blanks, are their any bands today that you think are good enough to stand the test of time?

I cannot think of any. Can you? I'm open to suggestions. And if you have any suggestions, why did you choose them?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
^^^^

This is true. No one asks to hear some "Old Coldplay"!!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Admiral,

True. There are reasons for this. BTW, I make these same kinds of claims relative to Beethoven/Mozart/Bach et al. (in music theory listservs), and the discussions are very interesting.

Quote:
 
Are the Beatles better musicians, better songwriters than say a band like Metallica

This is an entirely different question, but an interesting one. I think 8247 and Minuet ought to weigh-in on it. Besides, you've heard enough from me on the subject to this point. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Fesarius
Sep 16 2005, 02:21 PM
Quote:
 
But the same can be said for a lot of music that is not because it does not have the Icon status.

No, it can't. Show me some that can (without going back to Schubert or before that time). Icon status (as you put it) is irrelevant. Again, one cannot fake being pretentious. The material is there for all to see, and for all to dissect. Otherwise, Madonna (and others of that ilk) would have her/their music studied and analyzed voraciously.

CPA brought up a good point about other non easy listing rock music, how do they stack up?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
You fill in the blanks, are their any bands today that you think are good enough to stand the test of time?

I cannot think of any. Can you? I'm open to suggestions. And if you have any suggestions, why did you choose them?


How can I answer that question, first the Icons of this time are talent less made by cooperation and over shadow the talent by a large degree. The Beatles did not have to contend with this I never once say they where tenantless, but I would be willing to bet their talent alone today would not carry them to stardom, Second if I did answer your question you will discredit my choice on some musical aspect I can not contend with.

I don’t practically like the music but a bands like Nervona have put there name is rock history.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 16 2005, 02:27 PM
^^^^

This is true. No one asks to hear some "Old Coldplay"!!

They ask to play old Nirvana
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Fesarius
Sep 16 2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:
 
Are the Beatles better musicians, better songwriters than say a band like Metallica

This is an entirely different question, but an interesting one. I think 8247 and Minuet ought to weigh-in on it. Besides, you've heard enough from me on the subject to this point. ;)

No, I think that question is the crux of what we have been discussing over the last page or so.


You believe the Beatles are the best band that ever was and have, and for the most part you have cited either their popularity or their music ability.

Does this mean that the most popular artists are the best?

In order for them to be the best band ever, thier songs have to be the best of all time, but they were a mainstream band, I could eventaully name hundreds of artists from not so mainstream genres like country, rap, metal, blues and disco whos musical and songwriting abilities rival or top the Beatles.

They're popularity proves nothing of their talent ( see- Britney Spears).

It will be interesting to see how The Beatles stand the test of time in 20 years when the Baby Boomers start dyeing off
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Dandandat
Sep 16 2005, 01:37 PM

How can I answer that question, first the Icons of this time are talent less made by cooperation and over shadow the talent by a large degree. The Beatles did not have to contend with this I never once say they where tenantless, but I would be willing to bet their talent alone today would not carry them to stardom, Second if I did answer your question you will discredit my choice on some musical aspect I can not contend with.

Well, the lack of decent acts in the mainstream today is more about the nature of the music business the effect of the internet and reality TV

The talent is out there, just that if its not hip hop or screaming divas, the record companies give them no chance.

While their last album wasnt crash hot, Green Day are still in thier generation and they've had some pretty catchy tunes.

Hip Hop is doing well just cos one doesnt like that type of music doesnt mean Missy Elliot, the Black Eyed Peas and even Eminem dont have talent.

Plenty of other acts in fringe genres that are producing good stuff, just that making it in the biz isnt as easy as it used to be
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
...  never once say they where tenantless, but I would be willing to bet their talent alone today would not carry them to stardom, Second if I did answer your question you will discredit my choice on some musical aspect I can not contend with.

Scotty,

I did not say you said this at all. Secondly, your second statement (on being discredited) is unfair. I do not discredit opinions, only statements that are inaccurate--which is precisely what I did in my opening response regarding the Beatles and teens. ;)

Quote:
 
No, I think that question is the crux of what we have been discussing over the last page or so.

I disagree. You have admitted on occasion that you do not have the tools nor are you trained to know well-constructed songwriting (other than offering an opinion, to which you are entitled). So why should I believe you now? You've never given me any reason to do so in the arena of music (I am not speaking of other topics). You can say something is pretty, or catchy, or cool, but it says nothing about the music itself. The material of the Beatles (some 200-odd works) is as good as it is because of its unity, variety, consistency, and musicality. History says this is true, as do numerous record sales, musical experts, theorists, musicologists, pop/rock artists, and performers today whom have been forever influenced by their work. They changed music formally, and they did it consistently and at a level unsurpassed by any other band in history. If you can prove otherwise (other than saying their lyrics are silly), then please do so.

Quote:
 
I could eventaully name hundreds of artists from not so mainstream genres like country, rap, metal, blues and disco whos musical and songwriting abilities rival or top the Beatles.

Then do so. Not one or two tunes, or ten, but hundreds. And provide musical justification for your choices (other than, 'this tune is catchy') or provide well-informed (dare I say scholarly?) sources that substantiate your position. I could provide (as you well know) many musical reasons *apart from myself* for why their music is as good as it is. But when I do, I have been told to tone it down, or that scholarship has very little meaning here. Be that as it may, I will not let an unsubstantiated claim go unrefuted. It would be similar to me asserting that 2 x 2 = 5, and having people agree with me. ;)

Quote:
 
Does this mean that the most popular artists are the best?

No. That is why I mentioned that being 'Icon status' is irrelevant. The Rolling Stones (some would argue) are the most popular band in history. This is difficult to dismiss, but it says nothing about their talent. Again, I would ask you to look very carefully at the material--the music itself--and then formulate your assertions carefully and accurately based on what you glean from the work, rather than making ridiculous statements about teens of their time.

Quote:
 
Cos it only exists for those that were teens in the moment.

This is what I was responding to--and it was stated as fact. And it's still wrong.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Spiritual Journeys · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus