I personally love The Beatles, but I can also understand how later generations might find them overrated. For many years, I would have completely agreed that they changed music to the extent that virtually everything bore their influence. But I recently re-listened to all their output, and I was a little surprised by how little of it I find in contemporary music. If I had to pick artists from the '60s with the most influence on today's music, I'd probably have go with James Brown and perhaps the Velvet Underground.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
That’s a valid point. And you may be right when it comes to direct influence. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how much any one band influenced music as a whole. The Beatles influenced so many bands, not just in terms of songwriting and performing, but in terms of recording. And the Beatles opened doors for a lot of those bands because record companies were desperately looking for the next Beatles. And then those bands influenced many more bands, and so on down the line. It’s difficult to quantify who should be attributed for what exactly. But anyone who calls the Beatles underrated is completely ignoring the context of music history.
The Velvet Underground was pretty heavily influenced by the Byrds (though you can’t always hear it). Well, the Byrds basically started out as a Beatles cover band (though playing in their own way), mixing in some traditional songs and a few songs of their own. So when you say you hear the Velvet Underground as a major influence in today’s music, how much credit do the Beatles get for that? It’s too difficult to say, really.
But, as you said (more or less), people tend to ignore the context of history. Context is everything, except when people don’t care to look for it.
Okay but if we're doing Origin of Species, someone/thing influenced the Beatles.
Your argument here is akin to says, "F*** birds, birds are overrated. There'd be no birds at all if it weren't for dinosaurs, so what's so special about birds."
The Beatles were influences by many sources, but in turn influenced more than all of those ancestors combined. They represent a major cultural shift in music. It includes many others but none as iconic. How do you judge how they are "rated"? (or anything for that matter?) Only history can judge how something should be rated.
The benefits of phrenology, that's something that was overrated.
I do say 'fuck the birds.' I'm not actually saying fuck the Beatles. I'm only voicing my opinion about the PR the group gets. I'm referencing the Beatles' influence because if we're looking at why they're important to modern music, then shouldn't we look even further back? If we can look forward from the Beatles, why not back?
I'd say the 'rated' factor for me is 90% based on people's reaction verse the actions of the subject. I'm sure I'd feel indifferent about the band if people didn't prop them up as much. I always get skeptical about someone/thing the higher the pedestal they're placed.
I'm sure if Rush got the PR the Beatles get, they'd be on my list too.
I personally love The Beatles, but I can also understand how later generations might find them overrated. For many years, I would have completely agreed that they changed music to the extent that virtually everything bore their influence. But I recently re-listened to all their output, and I was a little surprised by how little of it I find in contemporary music. If I had to pick artists from the '60s with the most influence on today's music, I'd probably have go with James Brown and perhaps the Velvet Underground.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
That’s a valid point. And you may be right when it comes to direct influence. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how much any one band influenced music as a whole. The Beatles influenced so many bands, not just in terms of songwriting and performing, but in terms of recording. And the Beatles opened doors for a lot of those bands because record companies were desperately looking for the next Beatles. And then those bands influenced many more bands, and so on down the line. It’s difficult to quantify who should be attributed for what exactly. But anyone who calls the Beatles underrated is completely ignoring the context of music history.
The Velvet Underground was pretty heavily influenced by the Byrds (though you can’t always hear it). Well, the Byrds basically started out as a Beatles cover band (though playing in their own way), mixing in some traditional songs and a few songs of their own. So when you say you hear the Velvet Underground as a major influence in today’s music, how much credit do the Beatles get for that? It’s too difficult to say, really.
But, as you said (more or less), people tend to ignore the context of history. Context is everything, except when people don’t care to look for it.
Okay but if we're doing Origin of Species, someone/thing influenced the Beatles.
And I've already stated in a previous post that Chuck Berry and Little Richard were two of the Beatles’ big influences, and that they also changed the course of music. I could also point out that the Beatles were heavily influenced by the skiffle bands that proliferated throughout England in the ’50s (especially Lennon, who played in a skiffle band pre-Beatles). It’s what each band does with those influences that makes them unique. That’s why I said it’s so difficult to say exactly how much one band can influence music as a whole.
What is clear though, is that the music industry changed greatly as a direct result of the Beatles.
Yeah, averaging out the posts on this board and nothing more, I think MoS achieved a ranking of Meh.
On that note, my son and I finally got around to watching the Blu-Ray this weekend while my wife was out of town . He hated it, and said it was depressing (he's 8). I nearly fell asleep nearing the end of the movie. There were moments that I thought were kind of good, but overall I really wish I hadn't picked it up. He really enjoyed Pacific Rim, and The Wolverine. Trying to turn him into a little geek, bit by bit...
I personally love The Beatles, but I can also understand how later generations might find them overrated. For many years, I would have completely agreed that they changed music to the extent that virtually everything bore their influence. But I recently re-listened to all their output, and I was a little surprised by how little of it I find in contemporary music. If I had to pick artists from the '60s with the most influence on today's music, I'd probably have go with James Brown and perhaps the Velvet Underground.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
That’s a valid point. And you may be right when it comes to direct influence. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how much any one band influenced music as a whole. The Beatles influenced so many bands, not just in terms of songwriting and performing, but in terms of recording. And the Beatles opened doors for a lot of those bands because record companies were desperately looking for the next Beatles. And then those bands influenced many more bands, and so on down the line. It’s difficult to quantify who should be attributed for what exactly. But anyone who calls the Beatles underrated is completely ignoring the context of music history.
The Velvet Underground was pretty heavily influenced by the Byrds (though you can’t always hear it). Well, the Byrds basically started out as a Beatles cover band (though playing in their own way), mixing in some traditional songs and a few songs of their own. So when you say you hear the Velvet Underground as a major influence in today’s music, how much credit do the Beatles get for that? It’s too difficult to say, really.
But, as you said (more or less), people tend to ignore the context of history. Context is everything, except when people don’t care to look for it.
Okay but if we're doing Origin of Species, someone/thing influenced the Beatles.
And I've already stated in a previous post that Chuck Berry and Little Richard were two of the Beatles’ big influences, and that they also changed the course of music. I could also point out that the Beatles were heavily influenced by the skiffle bands that proliferated throughout England in the ’50s (especially Lennon, who played in a skiffle band pre-Beatles). It’s what each band does with those influences that makes them unique. That’s why I said it’s so difficult to say exactly how much one band can influence music as a whole.
What is clear though, is that the music industry changed greatly as a direct result of the Beatles.
Excellent, so the next time I hear about godliness of the Beatles, I can mention Chuck Berry, Little Richard, & Buddy Holly.
I personally love The Beatles, but I can also understand how later generations might find them overrated. For many years, I would have completely agreed that they changed music to the extent that virtually everything bore their influence. But I recently re-listened to all their output, and I was a little surprised by how little of it I find in contemporary music. If I had to pick artists from the '60s with the most influence on today's music, I'd probably have go with James Brown and perhaps the Velvet Underground.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
That’s a valid point. And you may be right when it comes to direct influence. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how much any one band influenced music as a whole. The Beatles influenced so many bands, not just in terms of songwriting and performing, but in terms of recording. And the Beatles opened doors for a lot of those bands because record companies were desperately looking for the next Beatles. And then those bands influenced many more bands, and so on down the line. It’s difficult to quantify who should be attributed for what exactly. But anyone who calls the Beatles underrated is completely ignoring the context of music history.
The Velvet Underground was pretty heavily influenced by the Byrds (though you can’t always hear it). Well, the Byrds basically started out as a Beatles cover band (though playing in their own way), mixing in some traditional songs and a few songs of their own. So when you say you hear the Velvet Underground as a major influence in today’s music, how much credit do the Beatles get for that? It’s too difficult to say, really.
But, as you said (more or less), people tend to ignore the context of history. Context is everything, except when people don’t care to look for it.
Okay but if we're doing Origin of Species, someone/thing influenced the Beatles.
Your argument here is akin to says, "F*** birds, birds are overrated. There'd be no birds at all if it weren't for dinosaurs, so what's so special about birds."
The Beatles were influences by many sources, but in turn influenced more than all of those ancestors combined. They represent a major cultural shift in music. It includes many others but none as iconic. How do you judge how they are "rated"? (or anything for that matter?) Only history can judge how something should be rated.
The benefits of phrenology, that's something that was overrated.
I do say 'fuck the birds.' I'm not actually saying fuck the Beatles. I'm only voicing my opinion about the PR the group gets. I'm referencing the Beatles' influence because if we're looking at why they're important to modern music, then shouldn't we look even further back? If we can look forward from the Beatles, why not back?
I'd say the 'rated' factor for me is 90% based on people's reaction verse the actions of the subject. I'm sure I'd feel indifferent about the band if people didn't prop them up as much. I always get skeptical about someone/thing the higher the pedestal they're placed.
I'm sure if Rush got the PR the Beatles get, they'd be on my list too.
M
We look forward from the Beatles because they represent something that their influences do not. A clear change that coincided with their arrival on the music scene. One which they embody more than any other artist of the time and whose impact has outlasted and reached further than any of their contemporaries or musical ancestors. They took from their many influences and synthesized something new. They took apples and sugar and bread, which all tastes great, and created apple pie. If anything, their success and longevity in the cultural ether only highlight how underrated their influences were not how overrated the Beatles are.
Perhaps the issue that some of you are having is the use of the word 'influence'. What if we substituted the word 'impact' instead?
Yes the Beatles had many influences, and influenced MANY more. And if you follow the birds and dinosaur argument (lol) we should say that Little Richard and Chuck Berry SHOULD be more influential than the Beatles. But neither Little Richard, Chuck Berry, nor Buddy Holly had the same impact on the music world.
They were great. They just weren't the Beatles. :)
Yeah, averaging out the posts on this board and nothing more, I think MoS achieved a ranking of Meh.
On that note, my son and I finally got around to watching the Blu-Ray this weekend while my wife was out of town . He hated it, and said it was depressing (he's 8). I nearly fell asleep nearing the end of the movie. There were moments that I thought were kind of good, but overall I really wish I hadn't picked it up. He really enjoyed Pacific Rim, and The Wolverine. Trying to turn him into a little geek, bit by bit...
I'm always interested in what kids think of these things. My 8-year-old has no interest in seeing it. She’s much more into Doctor Who and Adventure Time at the moment, and her best friend at school has gotten her into the Percy Jackson books.
I personally love The Beatles, but I can also understand how later generations might find them overrated. For many years, I would have completely agreed that they changed music to the extent that virtually everything bore their influence. But I recently re-listened to all their output, and I was a little surprised by how little of it I find in contemporary music. If I had to pick artists from the '60s with the most influence on today's music, I'd probably have go with James Brown and perhaps the Velvet Underground.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
That’s a valid point. And you may be right when it comes to direct influence. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how much any one band influenced music as a whole. The Beatles influenced so many bands, not just in terms of songwriting and performing, but in terms of recording. And the Beatles opened doors for a lot of those bands because record companies were desperately looking for the next Beatles. And then those bands influenced many more bands, and so on down the line. It’s difficult to quantify who should be attributed for what exactly. But anyone who calls the Beatles underrated is completely ignoring the context of music history.
The Velvet Underground was pretty heavily influenced by the Byrds (though you can’t always hear it). Well, the Byrds basically started out as a Beatles cover band (though playing in their own way), mixing in some traditional songs and a few songs of their own. So when you say you hear the Velvet Underground as a major influence in today’s music, how much credit do the Beatles get for that? It’s too difficult to say, really.
But, as you said (more or less), people tend to ignore the context of history. Context is everything, except when people don’t care to look for it.
Okay but if we're doing Origin of Species, someone/thing influenced the Beatles.
Your argument here is akin to says, "F*** birds, birds are overrated. There'd be no birds at all if it weren't for dinosaurs, so what's so special about birds."
The Beatles were influences by many sources, but in turn influenced more than all of those ancestors combined. They represent a major cultural shift in music. It includes many others but none as iconic. How do you judge how they are "rated"? (or anything for that matter?) Only history can judge how something should be rated.
The benefits of phrenology, that's something that was overrated.
I do say 'fuck the birds.' I'm not actually saying fuck the Beatles. I'm only voicing my opinion about the PR the group gets. I'm referencing the Beatles' influence because if we're looking at why they're important to modern music, then shouldn't we look even further back? If we can look forward from the Beatles, why not back?
I'd say the 'rated' factor for me is 90% based on people's reaction verse the actions of the subject. I'm sure I'd feel indifferent about the band if people didn't prop them up as much. I always get skeptical about someone/thing the higher the pedestal they're placed.
I'm sure if Rush got the PR the Beatles get, they'd be on my list too.
M
We look forward from the Beatles because they represent something that their influences do not. A clear change that coincided with their arrival on the music scene. One which they embody more than any other artist of the time and whose impact has outlasted and reached further than any of their contemporaries or musical ancestors. They took from their many influences and synthesized something new. They took apples and sugar and bread, which all tastes great, and created apple pie. If anything, their success and longevity in the cultural ether only highlight how underrated their influences were not how overrated the Beatles are.
This seems a little fuzzy to me. So the Beatles influenced some bands, but are you going so far as to say they influence most, if not all of modern music of today? Maybe through a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon diagram, but then even they would be apart of someone else's.
If a modern band is 1% influenced by the Beatles through the Bacon Diagram, is that enough to elevate the pedestal?
Anything put on a pedestal will never live up to its hype. I loved The Dark Knight Rises, but without the success of The Dark Knight & the Colorado theatre shooting would the movie still have surpassed $1 billion?
Just found this quote I find cool and funny in light of this thread (off topic as it may be)...
"John Lennon told Jerry “J.I.” Allison, drummer for the Crickets and Holly’s best friend, “There would not even have been a Beatles had it not been for the Crickets.”
Doesnt Paul Mcartney hold a music festival somewhere in England every year in honor of Buddy Holly?
I personally love The Beatles, but I can also understand how later generations might find them overrated. For many years, I would have completely agreed that they changed music to the extent that virtually everything bore their influence. But I recently re-listened to all their output, and I was a little surprised by how little of it I find in contemporary music. If I had to pick artists from the '60s with the most influence on today's music, I'd probably have go with James Brown and perhaps the Velvet Underground.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
That’s a valid point. And you may be right when it comes to direct influence. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how much any one band influenced music as a whole. The Beatles influenced so many bands, not just in terms of songwriting and performing, but in terms of recording. And the Beatles opened doors for a lot of those bands because record companies were desperately looking for the next Beatles. And then those bands influenced many more bands, and so on down the line. It’s difficult to quantify who should be attributed for what exactly. But anyone who calls the Beatles underrated is completely ignoring the context of music history.
The Velvet Underground was pretty heavily influenced by the Byrds (though you can’t always hear it). Well, the Byrds basically started out as a Beatles cover band (though playing in their own way), mixing in some traditional songs and a few songs of their own. So when you say you hear the Velvet Underground as a major influence in today’s music, how much credit do the Beatles get for that? It’s too difficult to say, really.
But, as you said (more or less), people tend to ignore the context of history. Context is everything, except when people don’t care to look for it.
Okay but if we're doing Origin of Species, someone/thing influenced the Beatles.
Your argument here is akin to says, "F*** birds, birds are overrated. There'd be no birds at all if it weren't for dinosaurs, so what's so special about birds."
The Beatles were influences by many sources, but in turn influenced more than all of those ancestors combined. They represent a major cultural shift in music. It includes many others but none as iconic. How do you judge how they are "rated"? (or anything for that matter?) Only history can judge how something should be rated.
The benefits of phrenology, that's something that was overrated.
I do say 'fuck the birds.' I'm not actually saying fuck the Beatles. I'm only voicing my opinion about the PR the group gets. I'm referencing the Beatles' influence because if we're looking at why they're important to modern music, then shouldn't we look even further back? If we can look forward from the Beatles, why not back?
I'd say the 'rated' factor for me is 90% based on people's reaction verse the actions of the subject. I'm sure I'd feel indifferent about the band if people didn't prop them up as much. I always get skeptical about someone/thing the higher the pedestal they're placed.
I'm sure if Rush got the PR the Beatles get, they'd be on my list too.
M
We look forward from the Beatles because they represent something that their influences do not. A clear change that coincided with their arrival on the music scene. One which they embody more than any other artist of the time and whose impact has outlasted and reached further than any of their contemporaries or musical ancestors. They took from their many influences and synthesized something new. They took apples and sugar and bread, which all tastes great, and created apple pie. If anything, their success and longevity in the cultural ether only highlight how underrated their influences were not how overrated the Beatles are.
This seems a little fuzzy to me. So the Beatles influenced some bands, but are you going so far as to say they influence most, if not all of modern music of today? Maybe through a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon diagram, but then even they would be apart of someone else's.
If a modern band is 1% influenced by the Beatles through the Bacon Diagram, is that enough to elevate the pedestal?
M
I'm saying that no one person can be the judge of ratedness. I think Batman is overrated. The impact that franchise has had on me is minimal. And I could point to pulp heros like the Shadow and the Phantom as influences. And name all the comics that don't have clear connections to Batman. But its a stupid argument. There is no denying Batman's influence and impact.
I personally love The Beatles, but I can also understand how later generations might find them overrated. For many years, I would have completely agreed that they changed music to the extent that virtually everything bore their influence. But I recently re-listened to all their output, and I was a little surprised by how little of it I find in contemporary music. If I had to pick artists from the '60s with the most influence on today's music, I'd probably have go with James Brown and perhaps the Velvet Underground.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
That’s a valid point. And you may be right when it comes to direct influence. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how much any one band influenced music as a whole. The Beatles influenced so many bands, not just in terms of songwriting and performing, but in terms of recording. And the Beatles opened doors for a lot of those bands because record companies were desperately looking for the next Beatles. And then those bands influenced many more bands, and so on down the line. It’s difficult to quantify who should be attributed for what exactly. But anyone who calls the Beatles underrated is completely ignoring the context of music history.
The Velvet Underground was pretty heavily influenced by the Byrds (though you can’t always hear it). Well, the Byrds basically started out as a Beatles cover band (though playing in their own way), mixing in some traditional songs and a few songs of their own. So when you say you hear the Velvet Underground as a major influence in today’s music, how much credit do the Beatles get for that? It’s too difficult to say, really.
But, as you said (more or less), people tend to ignore the context of history. Context is everything, except when people don’t care to look for it.
Okay but if we're doing Origin of Species, someone/thing influenced the Beatles.
Your argument here is akin to says, "F*** birds, birds are overrated. There'd be no birds at all if it weren't for dinosaurs, so what's so special about birds."
The Beatles were influences by many sources, but in turn influenced more than all of those ancestors combined. They represent a major cultural shift in music. It includes many others but none as iconic. How do you judge how they are "rated"? (or anything for that matter?) Only history can judge how something should be rated.
The benefits of phrenology, that's something that was overrated.
I do say 'fuck the birds.' I'm not actually saying fuck the Beatles. I'm only voicing my opinion about the PR the group gets. I'm referencing the Beatles' influence because if we're looking at why they're important to modern music, then shouldn't we look even further back? If we can look forward from the Beatles, why not back?
I'd say the 'rated' factor for me is 90% based on people's reaction verse the actions of the subject. I'm sure I'd feel indifferent about the band if people didn't prop them up as much. I always get skeptical about someone/thing the higher the pedestal they're placed.
I'm sure if Rush got the PR the Beatles get, they'd be on my list too.
M
We look forward from the Beatles because they represent something that their influences do not. A clear change that coincided with their arrival on the music scene. One which they embody more than any other artist of the time and whose impact has outlasted and reached further than any of their contemporaries or musical ancestors. They took from their many influences and synthesized something new. They took apples and sugar and bread, which all tastes great, and created apple pie. If anything, their success and longevity in the cultural ether only highlight how underrated their influences were not how overrated the Beatles are.
This seems a little fuzzy to me. So the Beatles influenced some bands, but are you going so far as to say they influence most, if not all of modern music of today? Maybe through a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon diagram, but then even they would be apart of someone else's.
If a modern band is 1% influenced by the Beatles through the Bacon Diagram, is that enough to elevate the pedestal?
M
I'm saying that no one person can be the judge of ratedness. I think Batman is overrated. The impact that franchise has had on me is minimal. And I could point to pulp heros like the Shadow and the Phantom as influences. And name all the comics that don't have clear connections to Batman. But its a stupid argument. There is no denying Batman's influence and impact.
But wouldn't that mean that no one person can judge anything? Show on CGS, when we give a movie rating it should only as a group & not individually?
You could be right, but do people get as defensive about hearing 'Batman is overrated' as they do about the Beatles? Is shrine the Dark Knight placed as sacred as the Beatles?
And would you say Batman is more influential then the Shadow? Arguably, the Shadow influenced more pulp characters then Batman has with modern characters. In fact pulp characters in general (as heard on Comics: With or Without Pulp...yes a cheap plug, but I need them) influenced more of the modern comic characters then Batman did. Batman has just grown to become the face of what he's based on over the years. As the notion of pulp characters grow older & older, with young whippersnappers not learning about them, Batman has become the icon of the themes.
I personally love The Beatles, but I can also understand how later generations might find them overrated. For many years, I would have completely agreed that they changed music to the extent that virtually everything bore their influence. But I recently re-listened to all their output, and I was a little surprised by how little of it I find in contemporary music. If I had to pick artists from the '60s with the most influence on today's music, I'd probably have go with James Brown and perhaps the Velvet Underground.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
That’s a valid point. And you may be right when it comes to direct influence. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how much any one band influenced music as a whole. The Beatles influenced so many bands, not just in terms of songwriting and performing, but in terms of recording. And the Beatles opened doors for a lot of those bands because record companies were desperately looking for the next Beatles. And then those bands influenced many more bands, and so on down the line. It’s difficult to quantify who should be attributed for what exactly. But anyone who calls the Beatles underrated is completely ignoring the context of music history.
The Velvet Underground was pretty heavily influenced by the Byrds (though you can’t always hear it). Well, the Byrds basically started out as a Beatles cover band (though playing in their own way), mixing in some traditional songs and a few songs of their own. So when you say you hear the Velvet Underground as a major influence in today’s music, how much credit do the Beatles get for that? It’s too difficult to say, really.
But, as you said (more or less), people tend to ignore the context of history. Context is everything, except when people don’t care to look for it.
Okay but if we're doing Origin of Species, someone/thing influenced the Beatles.
Your argument here is akin to says, "F*** birds, birds are overrated. There'd be no birds at all if it weren't for dinosaurs, so what's so special about birds."
The Beatles were influences by many sources, but in turn influenced more than all of those ancestors combined. They represent a major cultural shift in music. It includes many others but none as iconic. How do you judge how they are "rated"? (or anything for that matter?) Only history can judge how something should be rated.
The benefits of phrenology, that's something that was overrated.
I do say 'fuck the birds.' I'm not actually saying fuck the Beatles. I'm only voicing my opinion about the PR the group gets. I'm referencing the Beatles' influence because if we're looking at why they're important to modern music, then shouldn't we look even further back? If we can look forward from the Beatles, why not back?
I'd say the 'rated' factor for me is 90% based on people's reaction verse the actions of the subject. I'm sure I'd feel indifferent about the band if people didn't prop them up as much. I always get skeptical about someone/thing the higher the pedestal they're placed.
I'm sure if Rush got the PR the Beatles get, they'd be on my list too.
M
We look forward from the Beatles because they represent something that their influences do not. A clear change that coincided with their arrival on the music scene. One which they embody more than any other artist of the time and whose impact has outlasted and reached further than any of their contemporaries or musical ancestors. They took from their many influences and synthesized something new. They took apples and sugar and bread, which all tastes great, and created apple pie. If anything, their success and longevity in the cultural ether only highlight how underrated their influences were not how overrated the Beatles are.
This seems a little fuzzy to me. So the Beatles influenced some bands, but are you going so far as to say they influence most, if not all of modern music of today? Maybe through a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon diagram, but then even they would be apart of someone else's.
If a modern band is 1% influenced by the Beatles through the Bacon Diagram, is that enough to elevate the pedestal?
M
I'm saying that no one person can be the judge of ratedness. I think Batman is overrated. The impact that franchise has had on me is minimal. And I could point to pulp heros like the Shadow and the Phantom as influences. And name all the comics that don't have clear connections to Batman. But its a stupid argument. There is no denying Batman's influence and impact.
But wouldn't that mean that no one person can judge anything? Show on CGS, when we give a movie rating it should only as a group & not individually?
You could be right, but do people get as defensive about hearing 'Batman is overrated' as they do about the Beatles? Is shrine the Dark Knight placed as sacred as the Beatles?
And would you say Batman is more influential then the Shadow? Arguably, the Shadow influenced more pulp characters then Batman has with modern characters.
M
First, I think that if I made the unilateral claim that "Batman is overrated" that I would get considerable flack for it.
Second, A person can have an opinion. What they can't do is judge for others or present their opinion as definitive. Certain things are built on consensus. Whether something is "overrated" or "underrated" is one of those things. You can add your two cents to the conversation but you can't speak for everyone.
And yes, I do think that Batman is more influential than the Shadow. Its not even close. San Fransico will never have a "Shadow Kid Day". And the cultural penetration of the Shadow as compared to Batman, beyond influence alone, well, frankly, there is no comparison.
I'd say the 'rated' factor for me is 90% based on people's reaction verse the actions of the subject. I'm sure I'd feel indifferent about the band if people didn't prop them up as much. I always get skeptical about someone/thing the higher the pedestal they're placed.
I'm sure if Rush got the PR the Beatles get, they'd be on my list too.
M
And herein lies the root of this whole discussion.
So rather than basing your opinion on the empirical evidence of sales charts, or taking into consideration the historical context of the band, you instead choose to base your opinion on the opinions of others—or to be more specific, in opposition to the opinions of others. That is to say, because so many others believe one thing is so, you say it must not be so. Do I have that right?
So the sentence "I think the Beatles are overrated" is a unilateral assessment? Me thinking that the band doesn't live up to the hype is not an opinion?
Does that also mean if I state "Mystery Men is an underrated movie" that's also a unilateral assessment?
Maybe in the 1930s, there would've been a Shadow Kid Day. If this was 60/65 years ago, do you really think Batman would have the influence the Shadow had? I don't. The general popularity of pulp characters in today's society is what has reduced the character. I single the Shadow out because most pulp characters I read are essentially a variant of the character.
Look at Darkwing Duck. The initial promos crossed him as Batman & Donald Duck. Look at Moon Knight. How many times has he been seen as Batman-lite? Both characters were introduced well after the dawn of pulp characters was setting. Both characters are more the Shadow then Batman. If they would've been introduced in the 40s & 50s, the comparison would arguably more about the Shadow then Batman.
I'd say the 'rated' factor for me is 90% based on people's reaction verse the actions of the subject. I'm sure I'd feel indifferent about the band if people didn't prop them up as much. I always get skeptical about someone/thing the higher the pedestal they're placed.
I'm sure if Rush got the PR the Beatles get, they'd be on my list too.
M
And herein lies the root of this whole discussion.
So rather than basing your opinion on the empirical evidence of sales charts, or taking into consideration the historical context of the band, you instead choose to base your opinion on the opinions of others—or to be more specific, in opposition to the opinions of others. That is to say, because so many others believe one thing is so, you say it must not be so. Do I have that right?
To some extent, yes. I don't get people quoting the charts when they tell me how great the band is. When people place the Beatles, the President, a movie, a specific pie on a pedestal, I have an expectation level. If whatever it is doesn't meet that level, then yes, in my opinion it's overrated.
The Titanic broke movie records & won numerous awards, that doesn't mean I can't say its an overrated movie. Very Bad Things doesn't get rave reviews, but that doesn't mean I can't say its an underrated comedy. Isn't part of being a 'cult movie' being an underperforming, underrated movie with a large fan following?
I'd say the 'rated' factor for me is 90% based on people's reaction verse the actions of the subject. I'm sure I'd feel indifferent about the band if people didn't prop them up as much. I always get skeptical about someone/thing the higher the pedestal they're placed.
I'm sure if Rush got the PR the Beatles get, they'd be on my list too.
M
And herein lies the root of this whole discussion.
So rather than basing your opinion on the empirical evidence of sales charts, or taking into consideration the historical context of the band, you instead choose to base your opinion on the opinions of others—or to be more specific, in opposition to the opinions of others. That is to say, because so many others believe one thing is so, you say it must not be so. Do I have that right?
To some extent, yes. I don't get people quoting the charts when they tell me how great the band is. When people place the Beatles, the President, a movie, a specific pie on a pedestal, I have an expectation level. If whatever it is doesn't meet that level, then yes, in my opinion it's overrated.
The Titanic broke movie records & won numerous awards, that doesn't mean I can't say its an overrated movie.
M
So nothing any of us have said about how the Beatles changed the course of music history, in terms of songwriting, music production, and so on have any bearing on how you rate the Beatles, correct? Am I understanding correctly that you saying the Beatles are overrated is based solely on what you hear in their music versus what you hear people say about their music? You’re placing no context on that music, just throwing every song ever written into a giant iPod and picking out what you like best?
So the sentence "I think the Beatles are overrated" is a unilateral assessment? Me thinking that the band doesn't live up to the hype is not an opinion?
Maybe in the 1930s, there would've been a Shadow Kid Day. If this was 60/65 years ago, do you really think Batman would have the influence the Shadow had? I don't. The general popularity of pulp characters in today's society is what has reduced the character. I single the Shadow out because most pulp characters I read are essentially a variant of the character.
Look at Darkwing Duck. The initial promos crossed him as Batman & Donald Duck. Look at Moon Knight. How many times has he been seen as Batman-lite? Both characters were introduced well after the dawn of pulp characters was setting. Both characters are more the Shadow then Batman. If they would've been introduced in the 40s & 50s, the comparison would arguably more about the Shadow then Batman.
M
I came into the conversation late. "I think the Beatles are overrated" is definitely not unilateral and is clearly an opinion. But your argument that the Beatles are just part of a long line of musical trends and therefore get undue credit is flawed. They transformed the musical landscape and in a historical context there is clear before/after dynamic there. All you have proven is that those who came before are underrated and have not been given their due. But it's not because the Beatles ate their lunch. Its not a zero sum game.
As to your second point, your argument about what Batman's influence would have been 60/65 years ago is absurdly irrelevant. It's a hypothetical that doesn't reflect how things actually are. It has nothing to do with his impact now or the comparative history of the two characters. Batman's impact is greater than the Shadow, deeper than anything the Shadow ever achieved. There is no medium Batman has not invaded. I think you could say he's a cultural icon worldwide, which is something you could never say about The Shadow. Your point about Darkwing Duck and Moon Knight only prove it. People can't even see the Shadow's influence anymore it's been so completely eclipsed. The Shadow was obviously an influence on Batman, but that doesn't mean he's on the same level.
The Titanic broke movie records & won numerous awards, that doesn't mean I can't say its an overrated movie. Very Bad Things doesn't get rave reviews, but that doesn't mean I can't say its an underrated comedy. Isn't part of being a 'cult movie' being an underperforming, underrated movie with a large fan following?
M
Titanic was a product of its time. What do people think of the movie now? I would guess its lost a great deal of its impact. If thats the case we can say it was overrated. But that can only be determined with reflection and context. To speak to something's present standing as being overrated or underrated is impossible. It simply is.
I'd say the 'rated' factor for me is 90% based on people's reaction verse the actions of the subject. I'm sure I'd feel indifferent about the band if people didn't prop them up as much. I always get skeptical about someone/thing the higher the pedestal they're placed.
I'm sure if Rush got the PR the Beatles get, they'd be on my list too.
M
And herein lies the root of this whole discussion.
So rather than basing your opinion on the empirical evidence of sales charts, or taking into consideration the historical context of the band, you instead choose to base your opinion on the opinions of others—or to be more specific, in opposition to the opinions of others. That is to say, because so many others believe one thing is so, you say it must not be so. Do I have that right?
To some extent, yes. I don't get people quoting the charts when they tell me how great the band is. When people place the Beatles, the President, a movie, a specific pie on a pedestal, I have an expectation level. If whatever it is doesn't meet that level, then yes, in my opinion it's overrated.
The Titanic broke movie records & won numerous awards, that doesn't mean I can't say its an overrated movie.
M
So nothing any of us have said about how the Beatles changed the course of music history, in terms of songwriting, music production, and so on have any bearing on how you rate the Beatles, correct? Am I understanding correctly that you saying the Beatles are overrated is based solely on what you hear in their music versus what you hear people say about their music? You’re placing no context on that music, just throwing every song ever written into a giant iPod and picking out what you like best?
I'm sorry, man. I did not realize you guys were trying to convince me. I can see the importance of the group, I just don't think they live up to the hero worship they get.
So the sentence "I think the Beatles are overrated" is a unilateral assessment? Me thinking that the band doesn't live up to the hype is not an opinion?
Maybe in the 1930s, there would've been a Shadow Kid Day. If this was 60/65 years ago, do you really think Batman would have the influence the Shadow had? I don't. The general popularity of pulp characters in today's society is what has reduced the character. I single the Shadow out because most pulp characters I read are essentially a variant of the character.
Look at Darkwing Duck. The initial promos crossed him as Batman & Donald Duck. Look at Moon Knight. How many times has he been seen as Batman-lite? Both characters were introduced well after the dawn of pulp characters was setting. Both characters are more the Shadow then Batman. If they would've been introduced in the 40s & 50s, the comparison would arguably more about the Shadow then Batman.
M
I came into the conversation late. "I think the Beatles are overrated" is definitely not unilateral and is clearly an opinion. But your argument that the Beatles are just part of a long line of musical trends and therefore get undue credit is flawed. They transformed the musical landscape and in a historical context there is clear before/after dynamic there. All you have proven is that those who came before are underrated and have not been given their due. But it's not because the Beatles ate their lunch. Its not a zero sum game.
As to your second point, your argument about what Batman's influence would have been 60/65 years ago is absurdly irrelevant. It's a hypothetical that doesn't reflect how things actually are. It has nothing to do with his impact now or the comparative history of the two characters. Batman's impact is greater than the Shadow, deeper than anything the Shadow ever achieved. There is no medium Batman has not invaded. I think you could say he's a cultural icon worldwide, which is something you could never say about The Shadow. Your point about Darkwing Duck and Moon Knight only prove it. People can't even see the Shadow's influence anymore it's been so completely eclipsed. The Shadow was obviously an influence on Batman, but that doesn't mean he's on the same level.
In its day, the Shadow was in everything; radio, movies, comics, novels, magazines. He had tons of merchandise. Pulp characters have essentially died out over the years for various reasons. Part of what killed the Shadow's popularity (in my theory) is the licensing. It's expensive to purchase the licensing for the character. Unlike Batman, he wasn't sold or bought by a comic book company. It's a reduction of appearances through out society (mismarketing of a movie), and his influences get attributed to Batman.
I don't see how irrelevant my notion that 60/65 years ago when the Shadow was popular. How many pulp characters are basically the Shadow? How many modern comic characters are basically Batman? How many modern comic characters are REALLY basically like the Shadow, but get attributed to Batman? Batman has become a worldwide icon, but his presence has also been felt throughout the ages. The Shadow (and pulp characters) has not.
If people in the US would be more willing to accept a foreign setting character (ie the Phantom), whose to say he would not be up there in the Pantheon of Comic Icons. The Phantom is a highly popular character in most of the world, except for the US.
So here's a statement people probably never thought they'd hear from me:
To some extent, Batman IS overrated. He gets credited for trends, themes, and images that really weren't his in the first place.
How many people really knew about Parkinson's Disease before Michael J. Fox announced he has it? Hasn't he become the face of the disease?
I would agree with U2. I like them fine, but it seems like the more acclaim their work gets, the less interesting I find it to be.
As for Nirvana - they delivered three great albums, one of them a classic. If I can find any fault with their reputation, it's that bands after them all seemed to be inspired by the wrong things. I don't think a single one of those later grunge/alternative bands came close to capturing what Nirvana had. They definitely changed things at the time, though, and very quickly. As someone in college at the time, who had been pretty fed up with music for a while, the shift was dramatic. It wasn't literally overnight, but it felt like it. It's how I imagine it was when the Beatles hit - I couldn't tell you what songs were hits from 1990-92 (MC Hammer? Vanilla Ice?) but I can still remember the music that came out in the three years or so after that. It was weird seeing musicians I actually liked given the attention I was only used to seeing with megastars like Madonna or Michael Jackson.
I'd say the 'rated' factor for me is 90% based on people's reaction verse the actions of the subject. I'm sure I'd feel indifferent about the band if people didn't prop them up as much. I always get skeptical about someone/thing the higher the pedestal they're placed.
I'm sure if Rush got the PR the Beatles get, they'd be on my list too.
M
And herein lies the root of this whole discussion.
So rather than basing your opinion on the empirical evidence of sales charts, or taking into consideration the historical context of the band, you instead choose to base your opinion on the opinions of others—or to be more specific, in opposition to the opinions of others. That is to say, because so many others believe one thing is so, you say it must not be so. Do I have that right?
To some extent, yes. I don't get people quoting the charts when they tell me how great the band is. When people place the Beatles, the President, a movie, a specific pie on a pedestal, I have an expectation level. If whatever it is doesn't meet that level, then yes, in my opinion it's overrated.
The Titanic broke movie records & won numerous awards, that doesn't mean I can't say its an overrated movie.
M
So nothing any of us have said about how the Beatles changed the course of music history, in terms of songwriting, music production, and so on have any bearing on how you rate the Beatles, correct? Am I understanding correctly that you saying the Beatles are overrated is based solely on what you hear in their music versus what you hear people say about their music? You’re placing no context on that music, just throwing every song ever written into a giant iPod and picking out what you like best?
I'm sorry, man. I did not realize you guys were trying to convince me. I can see the importance of the group, I just don't think they live up to the hero worship they get.
M
Well, I for one, am not trying to convince you of anything. I started my side of the discussion thinking (based on what you said) that you simply were not fully aware of the extent of their achievements and what it meant in terms of the music industry (and society for that matter) as a whole. I was trying to give you that historical context, because (in the eyes of myself and those of most critics) taking their music out of the equation entirely, those achievements alone make them worthy of being hailed as one of the greatest bands ever—their actual songs just add to that.
As it turns out—and this is what I find interesting—you aren’t really taking any of that into consideration. You’re just sick of hearing how great the Beatles are, and based solely on your personal taste in music (which I am in no way criticizing), you don’t think they’re worthy of all that blathering. (Based on my personal taste in music, even without the historic context, I still consider the Beatles to be one of the best bands ever. I really enjoy everything about their songs—the melodies, the intricacies, the experimentation—and there are very few of them I don’t like a lot, which is something I can’t say about most of the bands I listen to and enjoy.)
The thing is, the rest of us are ranking the Beatles not just on our personal preferences in music, but on the band’s historic significance as well. Those things matter to us—and, I think, to most of the people you hear praise them as well, at least to some degree. So by not taking those factors fully into consideration, in essence you’re automatically deducting points from their “ranking.”
But then—and here’s where it get really interesting—you bring up the Shadow versus Batman argument, and you do the exact opposite in your reasoning. You say:
As the notion of pulp characters grow older & older, with young whippersnappers not learning about them, Batman has become the icon of the themes.
Substitute “pulp characters” with “the Beatles,” and “Batman” with “modern rock,” and you basically have what I’ve been trying to say this entire time. And before you say that “Batman” should really be “the Beatles,” and “pulp characters” should really be Chuck Berry, et al, yes, it works that way too, but the point remains the same.
So I’m curious why you’re applying context to the ranking of something you like, but not applying it to the ranking of something that doesn’t appeal to you all that much. And hence, my line of questioning in my last few posts.
Comments
I'd say the 'rated' factor for me is 90% based on people's reaction verse the actions of the subject. I'm sure I'd feel indifferent about the band if people didn't prop them up as much. I always get skeptical about someone/thing the higher the pedestal they're placed.
I'm sure if Rush got the PR the Beatles get, they'd be on my list too.
M
What is clear though, is that the music industry changed greatly as a direct result of the Beatles.
M
I love it.
Yes the Beatles had many influences, and influenced MANY more. And if you follow the birds and dinosaur argument (lol) we should say that Little Richard and Chuck Berry SHOULD be more influential than the Beatles. But neither Little Richard, Chuck Berry, nor Buddy Holly had the same impact on the music world.
They were great. They just weren't the Beatles. :)
If a modern band is 1% influenced by the Beatles through the Bacon Diagram, is that enough to elevate the pedestal?
Anything put on a pedestal will never live up to its hype. I loved The Dark Knight Rises, but without the success of The Dark Knight & the Colorado theatre shooting would the movie still have surpassed $1 billion?
M
"John Lennon told Jerry “J.I.” Allison, drummer for the Crickets and Holly’s best friend, “There would not even have been a Beatles had it not been for the Crickets.”
Doesnt Paul Mcartney hold a music festival somewhere in England every year in honor of Buddy Holly?
http://listverse.com/2012/10/11/10-beatles-innovations-that-changed-music/
You could be right, but do people get as defensive about hearing 'Batman is overrated' as they do about the Beatles? Is shrine the Dark Knight placed as sacred as the Beatles?
And would you say Batman is more influential then the Shadow? Arguably, the Shadow influenced more pulp characters then Batman has with modern characters. In fact pulp characters in general (as heard on Comics: With or Without Pulp...yes a cheap plug, but I need them) influenced more of the modern comic characters then Batman did. Batman has just grown to become the face of what he's based on over the years. As the notion of pulp characters grow older & older, with young whippersnappers not learning about them, Batman has become the icon of the themes.
M
Second, A person can have an opinion. What they can't do is judge for others or present their opinion as definitive. Certain things are built on consensus. Whether something is "overrated" or "underrated" is one of those things. You can add your two cents to the conversation but you can't speak for everyone.
And yes, I do think that Batman is more influential than the Shadow. Its not even close. San Fransico will never have a "Shadow Kid Day". And the cultural penetration of the Shadow as compared to Batman, beyond influence alone, well, frankly, there is no comparison.
So rather than basing your opinion on the empirical evidence of sales charts, or taking into consideration the historical context of the band, you instead choose to base your opinion on the opinions of others—or to be more specific, in opposition to the opinions of others. That is to say, because so many others believe one thing is so, you say it must not be so. Do I have that right?
Does that also mean if I state "Mystery Men is an underrated movie" that's also a unilateral assessment?
Maybe in the 1930s, there would've been a Shadow Kid Day. If this was 60/65 years ago, do you really think Batman would have the influence the Shadow had? I don't. The general popularity of pulp characters in today's society is what has reduced the character. I single the Shadow out because most pulp characters I read are essentially a variant of the character.
Look at Darkwing Duck. The initial promos crossed him as Batman & Donald Duck. Look at Moon Knight. How many times has he been seen as Batman-lite? Both characters were introduced well after the dawn of pulp characters was setting. Both characters are more the Shadow then Batman. If they would've been introduced in the 40s & 50s, the comparison would arguably more about the Shadow then Batman.
M
The Titanic broke movie records & won numerous awards, that doesn't mean I can't say its an overrated movie. Very Bad Things doesn't get rave reviews, but that doesn't mean I can't say its an underrated comedy. Isn't part of being a 'cult movie' being an underperforming, underrated movie with a large fan following?
M
As to your second point, your argument about what Batman's influence would have been 60/65 years ago is absurdly irrelevant. It's a hypothetical that doesn't reflect how things actually are. It has nothing to do with his impact now or the comparative history of the two characters. Batman's impact is greater than the Shadow, deeper than anything the Shadow ever achieved. There is no medium Batman has not invaded. I think you could say he's a cultural icon worldwide, which is something you could never say about The Shadow. Your point about Darkwing Duck and Moon Knight only prove it. People can't even see the Shadow's influence anymore it's been so completely eclipsed. The Shadow was obviously an influence on Batman, but that doesn't mean he's on the same level.
M
I don't see how irrelevant my notion that 60/65 years ago when the Shadow was popular. How many pulp characters are basically the Shadow? How many modern comic characters are basically Batman? How many modern comic characters are REALLY basically like the Shadow, but get attributed to Batman? Batman has become a worldwide icon, but his presence has also been felt throughout the ages. The Shadow (and pulp characters) has not.
If people in the US would be more willing to accept a foreign setting character (ie the Phantom), whose to say he would not be up there in the Pantheon of Comic Icons. The Phantom is a highly popular character in most of the world, except for the US.
So here's a statement people probably never thought they'd hear from me:
To some extent, Batman IS overrated. He gets credited for trends, themes, and images that really weren't his in the first place.
How many people really knew about Parkinson's Disease before Michael J. Fox announced he has it? Hasn't he become the face of the disease?
M
As for Nirvana - they delivered three great albums, one of them a classic. If I can find any fault with their reputation, it's that bands after them all seemed to be inspired by the wrong things. I don't think a single one of those later grunge/alternative bands came close to capturing what Nirvana had. They definitely changed things at the time, though, and very quickly. As someone in college at the time, who had been pretty fed up with music for a while, the shift was dramatic. It wasn't literally overnight, but it felt like it. It's how I imagine it was when the Beatles hit - I couldn't tell you what songs were hits from 1990-92 (MC Hammer? Vanilla Ice?) but I can still remember the music that came out in the three years or so after that. It was weird seeing musicians I actually liked given the attention I was only used to seeing with megastars like Madonna or Michael Jackson.
M
As it turns out—and this is what I find interesting—you aren’t really taking any of that into consideration. You’re just sick of hearing how great the Beatles are, and based solely on your personal taste in music (which I am in no way criticizing), you don’t think they’re worthy of all that blathering. (Based on my personal taste in music, even without the historic context, I still consider the Beatles to be one of the best bands ever. I really enjoy everything about their songs—the melodies, the intricacies, the experimentation—and there are very few of them I don’t like a lot, which is something I can’t say about most of the bands I listen to and enjoy.)
The thing is, the rest of us are ranking the Beatles not just on our personal preferences in music, but on the band’s historic significance as well. Those things matter to us—and, I think, to most of the people you hear praise them as well, at least to some degree. So by not taking those factors fully into consideration, in essence you’re automatically deducting points from their “ranking.”
But then—and here’s where it get really interesting—you bring up the Shadow versus Batman argument, and you do the exact opposite in your reasoning. You say: Substitute “pulp characters” with “the Beatles,” and “Batman” with “modern rock,” and you basically have what I’ve been trying to say this entire time. And before you say that “Batman” should really be “the Beatles,” and “pulp characters” should really be Chuck Berry, et al, yes, it works that way too, but the point remains the same.
So I’m curious why you’re applying context to the ranking of something you like, but not applying it to the ranking of something that doesn’t appeal to you all that much. And hence, my line of questioning in my last few posts.