Are the Beatles Overated?
- Thread starter crimsonfloyd
- Start date
Ayeka
Hell Bent For Leather!
Jesus_Saves said:
Let's face it, out of all the people who listen to the Beatles, how many of them give a toss about imperfect eights or resin quarters or whatever the music theory is? About 0.001% I guess...
autumnsphere
Dreamer
Attn! Don't read this if you don't care about fifths. :Spam:Int said:
Hello Goodbye
The second outro is built on a vamping four measure phrase that is harmonically on top of a C Major pedal point. The underlying counterpoint in this section contains very typically Beatlesque parallel fifths:
Vocals: |C |- A |G G | |
Piano: |E |- D |C C | |
Bassline: |C |- |- |- |
it's as simple as that. A fifth is an interval that spans five notes for example, A-E or C-G. a parallel fifth is when two voices that are a fifth apart simultaneously move the same direction and distance in pitch. If two parts are moving parallel to one another, it should not be parallel fifths or octaves, because it sounds dull.
so if you have a parallel fifth in the first chord you shouldn't have a fifth in the second corresponding chord. that's what i meant, because you said that a parallel fifth is a series of perfect fifths.
YOU CAN START READING AGAIN.
So, what's the big deal?
You can find parallel fifths in Bach chorales and this is absolutely forbidden in the harmony with three notes. But Bach was a genius. He's so good that he can break the rules and his music still sounds wonderful. And so are The Beatles.
I'm really sorry that you refuse to accept this proof, it's so narrow-minded.
autumnsphere
Dreamer
Ayeka said:
Let's face it, out of all the people who listen to the Beatles, how many of them give a toss about imperfect eights or resin quarters or whatever the music theory is? About 0.001% I guess...
i'm asking you again - does this make the beatles less genius?
Autumnsphere, you have to be kidding me. With your knowledge on music it shouldn't be hard to say that The Beatles are an overrated band. I am in no way saying that they are horrible in any way, just my taste in music doesn't pertain to them. They are a good band and they can still be overrated. If you're the number one selling and played artist in history, I think its fairly safe to say that the band is overrated, especially with the caliber of musicians that the Beatles were.
Oh yeah, sorry I spelt ABBEY wrong, I am not a Beatles fan and I don't have any of their albums and I don't know any of the songs on that album but I think its funny that I know more about that Beatles then your average Beatles fan.
(Don't know how to quote, so I'll just copy and paste)Quote:
"'The fact that the Beatles are the number one selling band in this day and age says that they are overrated and also so does the lack of genuinity of the fans.'
this sentence doesn't make sense"
What's not to get, it's fairly straightforward, maybe when you quote me you should get the sentence before it to back it up a little more instead of being picky and pulling things out of context.
Quote:
"'when you ask them who they listen to they say "Bob Marley" and no one else'
so? what's wrong with bob marley... hes brilliant!"
You missed the total point of this sentence even though it was extremely straightforward. Bob Marley is brilliant, thats not the point. It was a comparison to back up my statement about the Beatles. Bob Marley, believe it or not, is the most overrated reggae singer. Hot Damn. No one knew of him in the U.S. when he was alive, but as soon as he died he boomed in the U.S.. Now you ask your average raggae "fan" what bands they like and Bob Marley is usually the only one they mention, and maybe sometimes his son, even though there are hundreds of thousands of raggae artists they could choose from.
Quote:
"Autmnsphere, you are one of the few out of billions who spends the time to go through music theory classes and can take appretiation for that 5th parallel etc, but hundreds of millions if not billions have heard the Beatles and say they take a liking to them because they are "great musicians."
does this make them less great?"
Again, you missed the point on this one. I was backing up your appretiation for the Beatles's music, but pointing out that not every Beatles fan has your same appretaition that you have that you have been spouting out in this thread. If you read any articals on Beatles music today, you may find out that most of the new age fan are kids starting to stop listening to the radio and get into their own type of music. The first music they usually go to is the Beatles BECAUSE right now kids do it to fit in and have something in common with other kids. Then they branch off into their own music. Right now kids are using Beatles music as a stepping stone to get into their own genre of music they like.
Quote:
"Even if I did say the Beatles lacked all emotion, what would a guy writing a song three decades later, who just happened to be influeced by the Beatles music have to do with weather or not the Beatles were overated or not? Would it somehow change the sound of their music? No!
first of all (again) IT DOES CHANGE THE SOUND of their music. in many ways. and second - I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE INFLUENCE, i was talking about musicians who care about emotions and not only about music theory."
Please elighten us on how it does change the sound of their music.
Face it, the Beatles are overrated. But guess what? It doesn't change their sound in anyway, and guess what again? It doesn't mean they're a bad band.
Oh yeah, sorry I spelt ABBEY wrong, I am not a Beatles fan and I don't have any of their albums and I don't know any of the songs on that album but I think its funny that I know more about that Beatles then your average Beatles fan.
(Don't know how to quote, so I'll just copy and paste)Quote:
"'The fact that the Beatles are the number one selling band in this day and age says that they are overrated and also so does the lack of genuinity of the fans.'
this sentence doesn't make sense"
What's not to get, it's fairly straightforward, maybe when you quote me you should get the sentence before it to back it up a little more instead of being picky and pulling things out of context.
Quote:
"'when you ask them who they listen to they say "Bob Marley" and no one else'
so? what's wrong with bob marley... hes brilliant!"
You missed the total point of this sentence even though it was extremely straightforward. Bob Marley is brilliant, thats not the point. It was a comparison to back up my statement about the Beatles. Bob Marley, believe it or not, is the most overrated reggae singer. Hot Damn. No one knew of him in the U.S. when he was alive, but as soon as he died he boomed in the U.S.. Now you ask your average raggae "fan" what bands they like and Bob Marley is usually the only one they mention, and maybe sometimes his son, even though there are hundreds of thousands of raggae artists they could choose from.
Quote:
"Autmnsphere, you are one of the few out of billions who spends the time to go through music theory classes and can take appretiation for that 5th parallel etc, but hundreds of millions if not billions have heard the Beatles and say they take a liking to them because they are "great musicians."
does this make them less great?"
Again, you missed the point on this one. I was backing up your appretiation for the Beatles's music, but pointing out that not every Beatles fan has your same appretaition that you have that you have been spouting out in this thread. If you read any articals on Beatles music today, you may find out that most of the new age fan are kids starting to stop listening to the radio and get into their own type of music. The first music they usually go to is the Beatles BECAUSE right now kids do it to fit in and have something in common with other kids. Then they branch off into their own music. Right now kids are using Beatles music as a stepping stone to get into their own genre of music they like.
Quote:
"Even if I did say the Beatles lacked all emotion, what would a guy writing a song three decades later, who just happened to be influeced by the Beatles music have to do with weather or not the Beatles were overated or not? Would it somehow change the sound of their music? No!
first of all (again) IT DOES CHANGE THE SOUND of their music. in many ways. and second - I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE INFLUENCE, i was talking about musicians who care about emotions and not only about music theory."
Please elighten us on how it does change the sound of their music.
Face it, the Beatles are overrated. But guess what? It doesn't change their sound in anyway, and guess what again? It doesn't mean they're a bad band.
R.I.P.2
just say hi
- Jan 22, 2002
- 6,875
- 54
- 48
I know what parallel fifths are, I just explained what they were twice. The Beatles did something Bach did nearly 400 years earlier, therefore they are geniuses?autumnsphere said:
The second outro is built on a vamping four measure phrase that is harmonically on top of a C Major pedal point. The underlying counterpoint in this section contains very typically Beatlesque parallel fifths:
Vocals: |C |- A |G G | |
Piano: |E |- D |C C | |
Bassline: |C |- |- |- |
it's as simple as that. A fifth is an interval that spans five notes for example, A-E or C-G. a parallel fifth is when two voices that are a fifth apart simultaneously move the same direction and distance in pitch. If two parts are moving parallel to one another, it should not be parallel fifths or octaves, because it sounds dull.
so if you have a parallel fifth in the first chord you shouldn't have a fifth in the second corresponding chord. that's what i meant, because you said that a parallel fifth is a series of perfect fifths.
YOU CAN START READING AGAIN.
So, what's the big deal?
You can find parallel fifths in Bach chorales and this is absolutely forbidden in the harmony with three notes. But Bach was a genius. He's so good that he can break the rules and his music still sounds wonderful. And so are The Beatles.
Please enlighten me on how Robert Fripp listening to the Beatles makes the Beatles music any better. Does his acts of the 1970's somehow make the sonic noises on the Beatles albums from the 60s change?autumnsphere said:
Good job avoiding my question. Now please, either show me where I said the Beatles lacked emotion, or admit you were wrong and jumped to conclusions.autumnsphere said:
Ok, explain to me how influencing others or using previously unused notes makes THE MUSIC sound any better at all.autumnsphere said:
Once again, read Ayeka's first post. Just cuz your the first to use something it doesn't mean your nessiasarily good at applying it. Btw even Ravi Shankar said George had no idea what he was doing on the sitar.autumnsphere said:
autumnsphere
Dreamer
Int said:
Y-E-S
try to copy bach and you'll see my point. it's impossible. bach is pure mathematics - it's so easy and clear and dozens of composers have tried to do what bach did with the same mathematical precision, it just doesn't sound so good. bach is godlike, that's the reason. im not saying that beatles are godlike but they did quite an impossible thing...
alright, don't you think it's rather silly to discuss the beatles, when you haven't heard abbey road? you don't have a single album for chrissake!
is this a rule i don't know or what? yes, they are the number one selling and played artist in history. not because they were popular. because they were genius.
i agree with feanor that this comment is slightly out of date... i don't know a single kid who listens to the beatles to fit in. maybe destiny's child, Kylie Minogue or Jay-Z but The Beatles? Excuse me?
no, great musicians use beatles as a stepping stone. that's why i said that it does influence the music they make. it's an unconscious foundation that lies in their heads all the time. you can't say "hey, wait - this spot is influenced by the beatles!", their influence is comprehensive, it's like the parent's influence. can you say exactly how your mother influenced your development?
please give me one good musician who doesn't recognise the beatles. this is just one more proof of their talent - countless musicians have made covers of their songs, people like king's singers and vadim brodsky and their songs are so suitable for improvisations, this is one more thing that makes them amazing.
R.I.P.2
just say hi
- Jan 22, 2002
- 6,875
- 54
- 48
Baroque music is rather confined and limited, actually. In any case, you're using subjective reasoning to explain an objective fact. Saying "it just doesn't sound so good" doesn't look very convincing to me. The Beatles might not sound good to me. Then?autumnsphere said:
Dude, you live in Lepzig, not America. When speaking about it being trendy for kids to like the Beatles, we were only speaking about American kids. They are the ones who are sundenly all into the Beatles, of course things are gonna be different where you live.autumnsphere said:
Can you please take a reading comprehension class!? Because you don't seem to comprehend what I'm asking you at all. I'll try again, and I'll make this very clear. If Robert Fripp (or any other musicans) listened to the Beatles, how in the fuck would that make The Beatles music sound any better!? Are you too stupid to understand my question and answer it corectly!?autumnsphere said:
Autumnsphere, you're contradicting yourself and going off on tangents. Realize the main argument is the overratedness of the Beatles not their so called "genius." Not one person has came out and said that the Beatles weren't innovative. There you're argument on their genius and innovation is over with, you don't need to bring up 5th parallels and how impossible it is to recreate Bach's sounds etc (we are speaking on terms with your average joe listening to music, not a music theory god). Now to get on the discussion of the real topic, how overrated they are.
No. Just becuase I don't listen to the Beatles on a regular basis and I don't own any Beatles albums doesn't mean I don't have any output on their music or their sales of records and their popularity.
Here we have a contradiction my good friend. I am pretty sure the Beatles are the number one selling and played artist in history because they were popular. You are a minority when it comes to recognizing the sheer genius of the Beatles, like I said, your average Joe listening to the Beatles is not a god with music theory.
Excuse me, but this is hypocritical statement. Saying that one band is listened to so people can fit in and saying the opposite for another band is just hypocritical. Remember everything is all relative, this happens with every band, there is always someone listening to a certain band just to be recognized for listening to that band so they can fit in.
Mind if I ask how old you are? Becuase I fall under the age group at which this is happening and I do see people listening to the Beatles to be on a common ground with their peers and to sound a little more sophisticated in their taste of music.
This quote is irrevalent and off topic. Topic at hand is how overrated the Beatles are.
This is not an answer to the previously asked question. This is what we call a tangent, or a diversion. Please stay on topic.
autumnsphere said:
No. Just becuase I don't listen to the Beatles on a regular basis and I don't own any Beatles albums doesn't mean I don't have any output on their music or their sales of records and their popularity.
autumnsphere said:
Here we have a contradiction my good friend. I am pretty sure the Beatles are the number one selling and played artist in history because they were popular. You are a minority when it comes to recognizing the sheer genius of the Beatles, like I said, your average Joe listening to the Beatles is not a god with music theory.
autumnsphere said:
Excuse me, but this is hypocritical statement. Saying that one band is listened to so people can fit in and saying the opposite for another band is just hypocritical. Remember everything is all relative, this happens with every band, there is always someone listening to a certain band just to be recognized for listening to that band so they can fit in.
Mind if I ask how old you are? Becuase I fall under the age group at which this is happening and I do see people listening to the Beatles to be on a common ground with their peers and to sound a little more sophisticated in their taste of music.
autumnsphere said:
This quote is irrevalent and off topic. Topic at hand is how overrated the Beatles are.
autumnsphere said:
This is not an answer to the previously asked question. This is what we call a tangent, or a diversion. Please stay on topic.
autumnsphere
Dreamer
crimsonfloyd said:
your question is ridiculous, i understood it the first time. i don't have an answer, it's just useless.
autumnsphere
Dreamer
ok, maybe i should get off the discussion, obviously you mean something i don't understand... i don't see the border between "overrated" and "not talented". What i understand is that an overrated band doesn't deserve the whole fuss and i think beatles deserve it, although the average joe doesn't get they're brilliant.
please define "overrated"
i must admit you've got a point (fair's fair).
please define "overrated"
i must admit you've got a point (fair's fair).
Ok lets just show how much of a hipocrite you are, we'll do this chonologically, ok?autumnsphere said:
I said:"My favorite musican in the whole world, Robert Fripp, was influenced the Beatles. So what? Does that change the way their music sounds in any way?"
You replied:"of course it does! how could you even think it doesnt?" And you understood the first time, so for some reason at this point it was so obvious that Fripp's music made the Beatles music sound better.
I replied:"Please enlighten me on how Robert Fripp listening to the Beatles makes the Beatles music any better. Does his acts of the 1970's somehow make the sonic noises on the Beatles albums from the 60s change?"
you realized what you had said was idiotic and went off on a tangent, hoping no one would notice:"please give me one good musician who doesn't recognise the beatles. this is just one more proof of their talent - countless musicians have made covers of their songs, people like king's singers and vadim brodsky and their songs are so suitable for improvisations, this is one more thing that makes them amazing."
Don't even try and deny it, its all right there infront of your face. You've been caught in but yet another pitiful contradiction. But one good thing came out of this, we can all agree now that the influence the Beatles had on others has NOTHING to do with the qulaity of their music, as their music would sound exactly the same if not a single other muscian was inspired by them.
autumnsphere
Dreamer
hahahahahahahaaaaaah
"You've been caught in but yet another pitiful contradiction"
i still think your point is ridiculous. nothing can change the way beatles sound, you don't have a fucking time machine... there's nothing you can do that can't be done... but the recognition of the hundreds of musicians changes the VALUE of their music.
"You've been caught in but yet another pitiful contradiction"
i still think your point is ridiculous. nothing can change the way beatles sound, you don't have a fucking time machine... there's nothing you can do that can't be done... but the recognition of the hundreds of musicians changes the VALUE of their music.
Like I've said, the fact that others were influenced by the Beatles doesn't make their music sound any better or worse then if there wasn't single musican in the world who listened to them. If others liking them is someones main reason for liking their music, then they are a poser, weather the others are friends at school or the musicans in ones favorite band, it doesn't make a difference.autumnsphere said:
autumnsphere
Dreamer
we are getting into a very stupid fight about opinions. and the most clever opinion about music i've heard is:
"The great thing about music is: you like it - great, you don't like it - GREAT anyway!"
Anathema
"The great thing about music is: you like it - great, you don't like it - GREAT anyway!"
Anathema
That sounds like something someone who just lost an argument would say. The argument itself was not stupid...autumnsphere said:
Similar threads
