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.
Three great studio albums (the first with the Pete Best of the band), one great live/acoustic album, (and two, maybe three, of those four are classic, imho) and a lot of previously unreleased stuff posthumously released. And then an amazing solo, but also with his own band, career by that Ringo/Paul of the group.
I was in high school at the time, and heard the alt-radio hits, but didn't really start to get into Nirvana until after Cobain's death when I went off to college. As far as record collecting at the time of Nirvana I was pretty deep into the Beatles. I was hearing the alt stuff, and also punk and post punk stuff, on the radio, including my high school's great radio station that I really should have done instead of, or along with, what I did do.
Amazingly, with all that, I'm not a huge Nirvana fan. I think I know what I need to know to retain some music knowledge cred, but they, and Foo Fighters (mentioned above, but not by name), are somewhere in my 5-10 slots. My top three are: 1. The Beatles, 2. Radiohead, 3. Pavement.
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.
Its completely subjective on my part. It's why I say 'in my opinion the Beatles are overrated.' I could've easily swapped in "organized religion", a pro athlete, "Avatar", JoePa, pretty much the people or things I've heard people hero worship over the years.
Plus, when hearing "we were bigger then Jesus" from Lennon, how can I not roll my eyes. And I'm not even a religious person.
As a Pats fan, I can't tell you how many times I've heard 'Brady is overrated' by non-NE fans. There's number to back up Brady's performances on the Top QBs of All Time lists. Didnt people root against them in '07 Super Bowl because they were tired of hearing about 'the perfect season'?
Fortunately, I don't hero worship him anymore then I do any athlete.
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?
M
Are you suggesting Michael J Fox is overrated as a Parkinsons spokeperson?
Also, the hypotheticals you suggest are irrelevant because they all deliberately ignore the actual history of these character up to now. But how else are we to judge?
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.
Its completely subjective on my part. It's why I say 'in my opinion the Beatles are overrated.' I could've easily swapped in "organized religion", a pro athlete, "Avatar", JoePa, pretty much the people or things I've heard people hero worship over the years.
As a Pats fan, I can't tell you how many times I've heard 'Brady is overrated' by non-NE fans. There's number to back up Brady's performances on the Top QBs of All Time lists. Didnt people root against them in '07 Super Bowl because they were tired of hearing about 'the perfect season'?
Fortunately, I don't hero worship him anymore then I do any athlete.
M I realize that, but that’s not really what I was asking. I was asking why are you being completely subjective on this subject (the Beatles)—which I think is what is frustrating the other posters who are arguing on the Beatles’ behalf—while being objective (and subjective) in regards to the Shadow. You’re using an objective argument to support a subjective argument, which in turn negates your subjective argument. (And I'm using “argument” in purely a technical way. I know you’re not taking this in an argumentative way.) If this was a formal debate, you’d have lost on that point.
What I want to know is if you were making a purely objective argument regarding the Beatles—granted, our reasonings aren’t completely objective, but my answer would be the same even if it was—would you still think they are overrated? And why?
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?
M
Are you suggesting Michael J Fox is overrated as a Parkinsons spokeperson?
Also, the hypotheticals you suggest are irrelevant because they all deliberately ignore the actual history of these character up to now. But how else are we to judge?
Not overrated, but gave the disease celebrity status.
I believe I'm actually working 2 thoughts here:
1.) not counting the Batmans, Moon Knights, or Darkwings, how many JUST pulp characters of that dominate era were influenced by the Shadow?
Now how many comic characters of the modern era (post 1939) were influenced by Batman? Here's where you could place your Green Arrows & Night Thrashers.
The 3rd grouping would be how many of the 'Batman group' would actually be more influenced by the Shadow then Batman? Here's where you could place your Moon Knights & Darkwing Ducks.
2.) my other argument would be that with the dying of the Age of Pulp characters & the licensing of the Shadow, Batman is seen to have more influence.
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.
"Blathering About The Beatles": there's something I could do all day.
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.
Its completely subjective on my part. It's why I say 'in my opinion the Beatles are overrated.' I could've easily swapped in "organized religion", a pro athlete, "Avatar", JoePa, pretty much the people or things I've heard people hero worship over the years.
As a Pats fan, I can't tell you how many times I've heard 'Brady is overrated' by non-NE fans. There's number to back up Brady's performances on the Top QBs of All Time lists. Didnt people root against them in '07 Super Bowl because they were tired of hearing about 'the perfect season'?
Fortunately, I don't hero worship him anymore then I do any athlete.
M
I realize that, but that’s not really what I was asking. I was asking why are you being completely subjective on this subject (the Beatles)—which I think is what is frustrating the other posters who are arguing on the Beatles’ behalf—while being objective (and subjective) in regards to the Shadow. You’re using an objective argument to support a subjective argument, which in turn negates your subjective argument. (And I'm using “argument” in purely a technical way. I know you’re not taking this in an argumentative way.) If this was a formal debate, you’d have lost on that point.
What I want to know is if you were making a purely objective argument regarding the Beatles—granted, our reasonings aren’t completely objective, but my answer would be the same even if it was—would you still think they are overrated? And why?
Yes. Overrated because they're getting the bulk of the credit for something they were a part of.
I would say the singers & bands, such as Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, & the Beatles helped define what music became afterward; with the Beatles being (arguably) the most successful of the time.
I would say characters such as Superman, Batman & Robin, Wonder Woman, & Fantastic Four helped define what comic books became afterward; with Batman (arguably) the most successful.
I would say pulp characters such as Doc Savage, The Shadow, & Green Hornet helped define the notion of what pulp characters became; with the Shadow & Doc Savage (arguably) the most successful at the time.
If the importance of what became the future of music for a time was shared WITH the Beatles instead of handed to them, THEN I would not believe they are overrated.
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.
Three great studio albums (the first with the Pete Best of the band), one great live/acoustic album, (and two, maybe three, of those four are classic, imho) and a lot of previously unreleased stuff posthumously released. And then an amazing solo, but also with his own band, career by that Ringo/Paul of the group.
I wasn't trying to be disparaging by only mentioning the studio albums. I own all those other things you mentioned, and agree that they're great. I was just focusing on the output that was planned by them, and intended to be presented to the public as their creative output. I'd probably regard Unplugged (and maybe even In Utero, depending on my mood) as classics, but Nevermind is definitely the one in the minds of most people.
I would say the singers & bands, such as Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, & the Beatles helped define what music became afterward; with the Beatles being (arguably) the most successful of the time.
1) From a completely objective standpoint (thanks nweathington), Elvis isn't even in the same building. Doesn't write his own songs. Doesn't skillfully play an instrument. Elvis is the early music industry equivalent of today's pop stars: Successful, pretty to look at, good PERFORMER, but not much beyond that. Again, many will cite his considerable chart and financial success. My argument is that this happened over a nearly 3 decade career, not the 7 year CAREER of the Beatles. Bear in mind, there's current artists that have had seven year gaps between ALBUMS.
2) Since pulp heroes and Batman have become another side of this argument, I would as that you consider this... I suggested the word IMPACT as opposed to INFLUENCE earlier. Both the Shadow and Batman have had considerable influence in comic, literature, and other entertainment avenues. What IMPACT did either have on the industry, though? Did the comic industry completely change when either character was introduced? An argument could be made that by their pivotal role in the founding of the Marvel Universe, that the Fantastic Four had a greater impact! Would comics have gone through as much of a renaissance in the 60's, had FF not been released? Yes, you could argue that Batman made a significant impact with the release of the Burton movie in 1989... or even the TV series in 1966... but considering the character made his debut in 1939, is it fair to call cultural impact significant when it occurs 30 or 50 years later?
Also, I was a record store manager when Nirvana's "Nevermind" broke the industry apart. Literally, one week we were selling Bon Jovi, Poison, Cinderella, and Pretty Boy Floyd. The next week, we couldn't give them away. In more than 15 years in the music business, I never saw anything like it. Fads come and go, but that was the only time I'd ever seen a single album turn the industry on it's ear.
Yes. Overrated because they're getting the bulk of the credit for something they were a part of.
I would say the singers & bands, such as Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, & the Beatles helped define what music became afterward; with the Beatles being (arguably) the most successful of the time.
I would say characters such as Superman, Batman & Robin, Wonder Woman, & Fantastic Four helped define what comic books became afterward; with Batman (arguably) the most successful.
I would say pulp characters such as Doc Savage, The Shadow, & Green Hornet helped define the notion of what pulp characters became; with the Shadow & Doc Savage (arguably) the most successful at the time.
If the importance of what became the future of music for a time was shared WITH the Beatles instead of handed to them, THEN I would not believe they are overrated.
M
Okay. First off, I strongly agree with the notion that nothing happens in a vacuum (and all of my statements in this discussion support this idea). And I agree that all of those you names, along with Buddy Holly and others, all had some part in shaping the music scene. But I think the Beatles shaped the music industry in a much more profound way than those others. The Beatles evolved and grew in ways the other influential bands of their era did not. They pushed music—or more precisely, what the general public recognized as good music—into areas no one else had before.
I think the difference in our opinions really comes down to what you think their general rating is, and what I think their general rating is. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you feel that the general consensus regarding the Beatles is that they are the greatest band ever and that rock and roll wouldn’t exist without them. Whereas I feel that the general consensus regarding the Beatles is that they are one of the greatest bands in the history of rock and roll, and that they changed the course of the music industry. It may not sound like much of a difference, but we’re pretty far apart on where we think they stand in public opinion.
I would say the singers & bands, such as Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, & the Beatles helped define what music became afterward; with the Beatles being (arguably) the most successful of the time.
1) From a completely objective standpoint (thanks nweathington), Elvis isn't even in the same building. Doesn't write his own songs. Doesn't skillfully play an instrument. Elvis is the early music industry equivalent of today's pop stars: Successful, pretty to look at, good PERFORMER, but not much beyond that. Again, many will cite his considerable chart and financial success. My argument is that this happened over a nearly 3 decade career, not the 7 year CAREER of the Beatles. Bear in mind, there's current artists that have had seven year gaps between ALBUMS.
2) Since pulp heroes and Batman have become another side of this argument, I would as that you consider this... I suggested the word IMPACT as opposed to INFLUENCE earlier. Both the Shadow and Batman have had considerable influence in comic, literature, and other entertainment avenues. What IMPACT did either have on the industry, though? Did the comic industry completely change when either character was introduced? An argument could be made that by their pivotal role in the founding of the Marvel Universe, that the Fantastic Four had a greater impact! Would comics have gone through as much of a renaissance in the 60's, had FF not been released? Yes, you could argue that Batman made a significant impact with the release of the Burton movie in 1989... or even the TV series in 1966... but considering the character made his debut in 1939, is it fair to call cultural impact significant when it occurs 30 or 50 years later?
Also, I was a record store manager when Nirvana's "Nevermind" broke the industry apart. Literally, one week we were selling Bon Jovi, Poison, Cinderella, and Pretty Boy Floyd. The next week, we couldn't give them away. In more than 15 years in the music business, I never saw anything like it. Fads come and go, but that was the only time I'd ever seen a single album turn the industry on it's ear.
WHAT? Next thing I know you'll tell me the Monkees were a studio creation too.
Yes. Overrated because they're getting the bulk of the credit for something they were a part of.
I would say the singers & bands, such as Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, & the Beatles helped define what music became afterward; with the Beatles being (arguably) the most successful of the time.
I would say characters such as Superman, Batman & Robin, Wonder Woman, & Fantastic Four helped define what comic books became afterward; with Batman (arguably) the most successful.
I would say pulp characters such as Doc Savage, The Shadow, & Green Hornet helped define the notion of what pulp characters became; with the Shadow & Doc Savage (arguably) the most successful at the time.
If the importance of what became the future of music for a time was shared WITH the Beatles instead of handed to them, THEN I would not believe they are overrated.
M
Okay. First off, I strongly agree with the notion that nothing happens in a vacuum (and all of my statements in this discussion support this idea). And I agree that all of those you names, along with Buddy Holly and others, all had some part in shaping the music scene. But I think the Beatles shaped the music industry in a much more profound way than those others. The Beatles evolved and grew in ways the other influential bands of their era did not. They pushed music—or more precisely, what the general public recognized as good music—into areas no one else had before.
I think the difference in our opinions really comes down to what you think their general rating is, and what I think their general rating is. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you feel that the general consensus regarding the Beatles is that they are the greatest band ever and that rock and roll wouldn’t exist without them. Whereas I feel that the general consensus regarding the Beatles is that they are one of the greatest bands in the history of rock and roll, and that they changed the course of the music industry. It may not sound like much of a difference, but we’re pretty far apart on where we think they stand in public opinion.
Mostly, yes. Although I understand they are a Texas size puzzle piece in the history of music, I don't find them swoon-worthy. When they get treated like Gods & pre-Beatles seen as BB (before Beatles) & post-Beatle invasion as AD in the music timeline, I find them overrated.
Also, for the tangent about the Shadow's influence vs. Batman, I think an argument cab be made that Batman (and the Shadow, and the many other dual-identity heroes) actually owe more to Zorro than to the Shadow. Which is why a film Zorro has even been woven into Batman's origin story, as if a tip of the hat to inspiration.
And the popularity of Zorro pulps was established years before the Shadow came along.
Of course, Zorro may not have been made had it not been for The Scarlet Pimpernel. . . and back and back it goes.
You can always find prior influences. But then there are some works (or bands) that come along and- often standing on the shoulders of what came before- do something that just hits. That does the right thing at the right time. And, in some cases, last longer with long careers (or with the right stewards maintaining the work). And in some cases these arguably derivative works far eclipse what came before. But that has always been the way of things. There was always some influence or precedent that can be pointed to for just about everything.
It's like Shakespeare- all but one of his plays are, plot-wise, actually rewrites of other plays, stories, or stories from history. But it was what he did with them, the time he did it, and the care that was taken to preserve his work after his death that made him so influential. Some of his contemporaries (or those he took from) might have felt that was unfair. But, his work (often built on another man's foundation) is what has lasted.
Also, for the tangent about the Shadow's influence vs. Batman, I think an argument cab be made that Batman (and the Shadow, and the many other dual-identity heroes) actually owe more to Zorro than to the Shadow. Which is why a film Zorro has even been woven into Batman's origin story, as if a tip of the hat to inspiration.
And the popularity of Zorro pulps was established years before the Shadow came along.
Of course, Zorro may not have been made had it not been for The Scarlet Pimpernel. . . and back and back it goes.
You can always find prior influences. But then there are some works (or bands) that come along and- often standing on the shoulders of what came before- do something that just hits. That does the right thing at the right time. And, in some cases, last longer with long careers (or with the right stewards maintaining the work). And in some cases these arguably derivative works far eclipse what came before. But that has always been the way of things. There was always some influence or precedent that can be pointed to for just about everything.
It's like Shakespeare- all but one of his plays are, plot-wise, actually rewrites of other plays, stories, or stories from history. But it was what he did with them, the time he did it, and the care that was taken to preserve his work after his death that made him so influential. Some of his contemporaries (or those he took from) might have felt that was unfair. But, his work (often built on another man's foundation) is what has lasted.
I would concur Batman comes more from the influences of Zorro (and Doc Savage) then the Shadow.
Yes. Overrated because they're getting the bulk of the credit for something they were a part of.
I would say the singers & bands, such as Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, & the Beatles helped define what music became afterward; with the Beatles being (arguably) the most successful of the time.
I would say characters such as Superman, Batman & Robin, Wonder Woman, & Fantastic Four helped define what comic books became afterward; with Batman (arguably) the most successful.
I would say pulp characters such as Doc Savage, The Shadow, & Green Hornet helped define the notion of what pulp characters became; with the Shadow & Doc Savage (arguably) the most successful at the time.
If the importance of what became the future of music for a time was shared WITH the Beatles instead of handed to them, THEN I would not believe they are overrated.
M
Okay. First off, I strongly agree with the notion that nothing happens in a vacuum (and all of my statements in this discussion support this idea). And I agree that all of those you names, along with Buddy Holly and others, all had some part in shaping the music scene. But I think the Beatles shaped the music industry in a much more profound way than those others. The Beatles evolved and grew in ways the other influential bands of their era did not. They pushed music—or more precisely, what the general public recognized as good music—into areas no one else had before.
I think the difference in our opinions really comes down to what you think their general rating is, and what I think their general rating is. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you feel that the general consensus regarding the Beatles is that they are the greatest band ever and that rock and roll wouldn’t exist without them. Whereas I feel that the general consensus regarding the Beatles is that they are one of the greatest bands in the history of rock and roll, and that they changed the course of the music industry. It may not sound like much of a difference, but we’re pretty far apart on where we think they stand in public opinion.
Mostly, yes. Although I understand they are a Texas size puzzle piece in the history of music, I don't find them swoon-worthy. When they get treated like Gods & pre-Beatles seen as BB (before Beatles) & post-Beatle invasion as AD in the music timeline, I find them overrated.
M
Maybe it’s because I’m a musician and have spent a lot of time around other musicians, but I rarely hear them put into god-like status. And while I do think there is a dramatic difference in the music scene before they arrived and after, it’s certainly not the only major turning point in the history of music, and I can’t remember the last time, if ever, I heard anyone make any such claim. And so I don’t find them overrated.
Wow... CBDb says cover date of September 1964. Wouldn't that mean it was put on shelves in July, and the cover might've been drawn about two months before that, in May? That's only three months after their arrival in America and the first Sullivan appearances, in February 1964.
"He's as popular as Ringo! I mean, he's no Lennon or McCartney, but I could see him having a few novelty hits before hitting the nostalgia circuit after a bout with alcoholism!"
Just saw this movie with my parents. They both loved it. And this was the first Superman movie I loved, ever. (This dismayed my parents. "Who the hell am I to not care for Christopher Reeve?", my step-mother said jokingly.)
So yeah, when it got to the end, and Supes had Zod in a headlock... My dad said "Just finish it. He's gotta do it. Just kill him."
And after the deed? "I know he didn't want to, but he had to."
Hearing that from my Dad? Shocked the heck out of me.
I tried to get my parents to watch it last week. My dad wasn't having it. He barely made it through The Dark Knight. And he usually doesn't make it through all the Marvel movies, from Avengers universe to X to Spidey and FF, so much so that I've given up on even asking about those.
Comments
I was in high school at the time, and heard the alt-radio hits, but didn't really start to get into Nirvana until after Cobain's death when I went off to college. As far as record collecting at the time of Nirvana I was pretty deep into the Beatles. I was hearing the alt stuff, and also punk and post punk stuff, on the radio, including my high school's great radio station that I really should have done instead of, or along with, what I did do.
Amazingly, with all that, I'm not a huge Nirvana fan. I think I know what I need to know to retain some music knowledge cred, but they, and Foo Fighters (mentioned above, but not by name), are somewhere in my 5-10 slots. My top three are: 1. The Beatles, 2. Radiohead, 3. Pavement.
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.
Its completely subjective on my part. It's why I say 'in my opinion the Beatles are overrated.' I could've easily swapped in "organized religion", a pro athlete, "Avatar", JoePa, pretty much the people or things I've heard people hero worship over the years.
Plus, when hearing "we were bigger then Jesus" from Lennon, how can I not roll my eyes. And I'm not even a religious person.
As a Pats fan, I can't tell you how many times I've heard 'Brady is overrated' by non-NE fans. There's number to back up Brady's performances on the Top QBs of All Time lists. Didnt people root against them in '07 Super Bowl because they were tired of hearing about 'the perfect season'?
Fortunately, I don't hero worship him anymore then I do any athlete.
M
Also, the hypotheticals you suggest are irrelevant because they all deliberately ignore the actual history of these character up to now. But how else are we to judge?
As a Pats fan, I can't tell you how many times I've heard 'Brady is overrated' by non-NE fans. There's number to back up Brady's performances on the Top QBs of All Time lists. Didnt people root against them in '07 Super Bowl because they were tired of hearing about 'the perfect season'?
Fortunately, I don't hero worship him anymore then I do any athlete.
M
I realize that, but that’s not really what I was asking. I was asking why are you being completely subjective on this subject (the Beatles)—which I think is what is frustrating the other posters who are arguing on the Beatles’ behalf—while being objective (and subjective) in regards to the Shadow. You’re using an objective argument to support a subjective argument, which in turn negates your subjective argument. (And I'm using “argument” in purely a technical way. I know you’re not taking this in an argumentative way.) If this was a formal debate, you’d have lost on that point.
What I want to know is if you were making a purely objective argument regarding the Beatles—granted, our reasonings aren’t completely objective, but my answer would be the same even if it was—would you still think they are overrated? And why?
I believe I'm actually working 2 thoughts here:
1.) not counting the Batmans, Moon Knights, or Darkwings, how many JUST pulp characters of that dominate era were influenced by the Shadow?
Now how many comic characters of the modern era (post 1939) were influenced by Batman? Here's where you could place your Green Arrows & Night Thrashers.
The 3rd grouping would be how many of the 'Batman group' would actually be more influenced by the Shadow then Batman? Here's where you could place your Moon Knights & Darkwing Ducks.
2.) my other argument would be that with the dying of the Age of Pulp characters & the licensing of the Shadow, Batman is seen to have more influence.
M
What I want to know is if you were making a purely objective argument regarding the Beatles—granted, our reasonings aren’t completely objective, but my answer would be the same even if it was—would you still think they are overrated? And why?
Yes. Overrated because they're getting the bulk of the credit for something they were a part of.
I would say the singers & bands, such as Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, & the Beatles helped define what music became afterward; with the Beatles being (arguably) the most successful of the time.
I would say characters such as Superman, Batman & Robin, Wonder Woman, & Fantastic Four helped define what comic books became afterward; with Batman (arguably) the most successful.
I would say pulp characters such as Doc Savage, The Shadow, & Green Hornet helped define the notion of what pulp characters became; with the Shadow & Doc Savage (arguably) the most successful at the time.
If the importance of what became the future of music for a time was shared WITH the Beatles instead of handed to them, THEN I would not believe they are overrated.
M
2) Since pulp heroes and Batman have become another side of this argument, I would as that you consider this... I suggested the word IMPACT as opposed to INFLUENCE earlier. Both the Shadow and Batman have had considerable influence in comic, literature, and other entertainment avenues. What IMPACT did either have on the industry, though? Did the comic industry completely change when either character was introduced? An argument could be made that by their pivotal role in the founding of the Marvel Universe, that the Fantastic Four had a greater impact! Would comics have gone through as much of a renaissance in the 60's, had FF not been released? Yes, you could argue that Batman made a significant impact with the release of the Burton movie in 1989... or even the TV series in 1966... but considering the character made his debut in 1939, is it fair to call cultural impact significant when it occurs 30 or 50 years later?
Also, I was a record store manager when Nirvana's "Nevermind" broke the industry apart. Literally, one week we were selling Bon Jovi, Poison, Cinderella, and Pretty Boy Floyd. The next week, we couldn't give them away. In more than 15 years in the music business, I never saw anything like it. Fads come and go, but that was the only time I'd ever seen a single album turn the industry on it's ear.
I see what you did there.
I think the difference in our opinions really comes down to what you think their general rating is, and what I think their general rating is. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you feel that the general consensus regarding the Beatles is that they are the greatest band ever and that rock and roll wouldn’t exist without them. Whereas I feel that the general consensus regarding the Beatles is that they are one of the greatest bands in the history of rock and roll, and that they changed the course of the music industry. It may not sound like much of a difference, but we’re pretty far apart on where we think they stand in public opinion.
M
M
M
And the popularity of Zorro pulps was established years before the Shadow came along.
Of course, Zorro may not have been made had it not been for The Scarlet Pimpernel. . . and back and back it goes.
You can always find prior influences. But then there are some works (or bands) that come along and- often standing on the shoulders of what came before- do something that just hits. That does the right thing at the right time. And, in some cases, last longer with long careers (or with the right stewards maintaining the work). And in some cases these arguably derivative works far eclipse what came before. But that has always been the way of things. There was always some influence or precedent that can be pointed to for just about everything.
It's like Shakespeare- all but one of his plays are, plot-wise, actually rewrites of other plays, stories, or stories from history. But it was what he did with them, the time he did it, and the care that was taken to preserve his work after his death that made him so influential. Some of his contemporaries (or those he took from) might have felt that was unfair. But, his work (often built on another man's foundation) is what has lasted.
M
It was not a boast. John was disturbed and even a bit frightened.
"He's as popular as Ringo! I mean, he's no Lennon or McCartney, but I could see him having a few novelty hits before hitting the nostalgia circuit after a bout with alcoholism!"
So yeah, when it got to the end, and Supes had Zod in a headlock... My dad said "Just finish it. He's gotta do it. Just kill him."
And after the deed? "I know he didn't want to, but he had to."
Hearing that from my Dad? Shocked the heck out of me.
:D