Phil posited, "Whenever anyone under 37 tells me their favorite band is The Beatles, I
always ask the same two questions: 1) Are your parents huge Beatles fans
and 2) Do you go to a lot of concerts. I almost invariably get the
same two answers: yes and no. That tells me they just aren’t a big fan
of music in general and they’re purely tapping into nostalgia. They
choose the Beatles b/c it’s a fairly inoffensive answer and they don’t
have much more to draw on. I got bad news for you: The Beatles have
been iterated on. If you asked an alien to listen to the Beatles and
Oasis and asked the alien who the better band is, it would pick Oasis..."
Most of you know I am a huge fan of The Beatles and
will often defend them when people attempt to trash them or their fans. When Phil claimed Beatles fans are not well educated in music, I immediately became interested. Here my answers to your questions. 1) No 2) No. My dad is not a huge fan but was like everyone else growing up in America throughout the 1960s - typically enjoying The Beatles. My mom is a big Patsy Cline and Elvis fan. She appreciates The Beatles but not exactly a big fan. I turned on to them when I was teenager because I would rather listen to Rubber Soul (one of their better albums) than any rap or the pop shit on the mainstream radio during the mid to late 90s. When I heard the White Album, Revolver, and Abbey Road, I was sold.
Why do I not go to concerts? I don't like the atmosphere. I saw O.A.R. live and it was fun but I could easily enjoy "Crazy Game of Poker," "City on Down," and "This Town" through my home stereo system and/or phone. I saw Lifehouse and Dot Dot Dot at the Bluebird when I lived in Bloomington and the both put on great shows but I hated feeling trapped. I have no interest in being around a mosh pit or a lot of weed so concerts aren't my scene.
Yes, Phil is correct that The Beatles were iterated but way sooner than Oasis. The Beatles kicked off the British Invasion during the mid 1960s and were successful. From their success, we heard from other noun based bands prefaced by an article such as The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Zombies, The Hollies, The Animals, The Kinks, The Moody Blues, The Troggs, and The Yardbirds. So yes, Phil, The Beatles were iterated but they also iterated other bands, One song that gets mistakenly credited to them is "Twist and Shout." That song belongs to the Isley Brothers, it's just that The Beatles did it better. They also covered Buddy Holly's "Words of Love," and it sounds better than the original. The Beatles get mimicked when bands don't even know they are doing it.
Now, Phil specifically mentioned Oasis as iterating The Beatles. The Beatles were a four member band with each member playing an instrument and singing. Oasis had (have?) five members and more or less resemble The Rolling Stones. Why compare them to The Beatles? Because they're British? Well, so are the Stones and have the same amount of members, so why not the Stones? Would Phil think the same way if someone said The Stones were his/her favorite band? The Who? Zeppelin? Aerosmith? Hahaha - Aerosmith...anyway. I think it comes down to the fact Phil doesn't like The Beatles or that they are consistently ranked as the top band by Rolling Stone Magazine. I sense some jealousy.
Finally, Phil stated that "if you asked an alien to listen to the Beatles and
Oasis and asked the alien who the better band is, it would pick Oasis." That has to be one of the dumbest things I read and sometimes I read an editorial from Fox News. I can think of three big hits from Oasis: "Wonderwall," "Champagne Supernova," and "Don't Look Back in Anger." I can think of twenty - seven number one hits from the Beatles so let's contrast. "Get Back" or "Wonderwall"...."Hey Jude" or "Wonderwall" "All You Need is Love" or "Wonderwall"..."Eleanor Rigby" or "Wonderwall"...."Help!" or "Wonderwall"....yeah, an alien would not pick Oasis. I think Phil just enjoyed this SNL skit too much and believed what the Will Ferrell character said
So Phil, I understand I am not like all Beatles' fans you encountered. After all, I worked as a DJ/Producer in college (big whoop) and had to keep up with new music every week. To dismiss all fans of one band is way too simplistic. C'mon, us Beatles' fans are not Yankees fans. When someone asks me what is my favorite band, I have a tough time answering it because I love Soundgarden, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Boston, Journey, Florence + The Machine, The Shins, Mellencamp, and many many others. I then ask the questioner, "of all time?" If that's the case, it is The Beatles...without hesitation or equivocation.
Then again... just because you're an exception, doesn't mean Phil's rule doesn't stand as a solid/fair generalization. Just like with Yankees/Cardinal fans (Exceptions: Doades/Trevor), or any other generalization!
ReplyDeleteAnd even so, your parents were Beatles fans, just not huge ones... so it's close! :-p
And... O.A.R. live is so ridiculously better than anything done in a studio!
You argue so much against generalizations. My mom isn't a fan per se. She will listen to them if they're on the radio or if someone is playing it. It's not like she goes out of her way to play the music, so no. The question Phil asks consist of the word "huge" in description of one's parents fan - hood.
ReplyDeleteI'm just mad you left out Rocky Raccoon.
ReplyDeleteI fit the stereotype - My dad loves The Beatles and no I don't go to concerts. They're too loud /crotchety old man rant. But serious, I do think they're too loud.
Bryan, you said they weren't your favorite band but that you liked them.
ReplyDeleteI like them a lot.
ReplyDeleteWhenever an answer in class is "9" o tend to say "number 9, number 9, number 9" aloud.
ReplyDeleteGlad I'm not the only one who does that.
DeleteLot to go through here, so I’m just going to tackle the things that caught my attention…
ReplyDelete“I turned on to them when I was teenager because I would rather listen to Rubber Soul (one of their better albums) than any rap or the pop shit on the mainstream radio during the mid to late 90s. When I heard the White Album, Revolver, and Abbey Road, I was sold.”
Right off the bat you’re proving my nostalgia point. I’m fairly convinced that people develop their lifelong musical taste sometime in that 16-21 age range. I think a lot of our generation gravitated toward classic rock of some kind because the mainstream primarily gave us boy bands and rap rock like Limp Bizkit and Rage Against The Machine (topic for another day – why it’s cool to still like RATM and shit on Limp Bizkit for being rap rock when RATM is also rap rock.)
“Why do I not go to concerts? I don't like the atmosphere. I saw O.A.R. live and it was fun but I could easily enjoy "Crazy Game of Poker," "City on Down," and "This Town" through my home stereo system and/or phone. I saw Lifehouse and Dot Dot Dot at the Bluebird when I lived in Bloomington and the both put on great shows but I hated feeling trapped. I have no interest in being around a mosh pit or a lot of weed so concerts aren't my scene.”
You’re going to wrong venues if you feel trapped. And the O.A.R. thing… Bobby already made my point there so I’ll leave it at that.
“The Beatles get mimicked when bands don't even know they are doing it.”
I’m glad you didn’t go full bore down the path of “music as it is now wouldn’t exist today if it weren’t for the Beatles.” I always hate that argument. Still though, if I had to summarize my stance on the Beatles, it’s pretty simple: I greatly respect what they did for music, but that doesn’t mean I have to love all their songs, or even like many of their songs.
“Now, Phil specifically mentioned Oasis as iterating The Beatles. The Beatles were a four member band with each member playing an instrument and singing. Oasis had (have?) five members and more or less resemble The Rolling Stones.”
It’s about sound, not band composition. Moving on.
“Would Phil think the same way if someone said The Stones were his/her favorite band? The Who? Zeppelin? Aerosmith? Hahaha - Aerosmith...anyway”
Stones – I’d probably have about the same stance. The Who – I would assume they saw them live several times, and no one under 37 has seen The Who live enough, so no one is picking them. Zeppelin – I’d just assume they were a massive stoner who philosophizes while stoned. Aerosmith – SMH.
“I can think of three big hits from Oasis: "Wonderwall," "Champagne Supernova," and "Don't Look Back in Anger." I can think of twenty - seven number one hits from the Beatles so let's contrast.”
Since when have “popular” and “good” meant the same thing? Katy Perry had five #1 songs on “Teenage Dream.” Is that the best CD of all time? By the criterion you’re laying out here, you have to put it in the conversation.
“"Get Back" or "Wonderwall"...."Hey Jude" or "Wonderwall" "All You Need is Love" or "Wonderwall"..."Eleanor Rigby" or "Wonderwall"...."Help!" or "Wonderwall"....yeah, an alien would not pick Oasis.”
ReplyDeleteAn alien absolute would pick Wonderwall over All You Need is Love. How did the writing session for All You Need Is Love go? “Hey, this song is 78 seconds long.” “Can we just repeat ‘All You Need Is Love’ for 3 and half minutes to get it to 4:18?” “Uh, sure, let’s go drink warm beer.” I’m not going to sit here and act like I know the Beatles catalog inside and out, but it feels like a lot of their stuff is lyrically… lacking? Once again, I respect them, but I don’t particularly enjoy them.
“So Phil, I understand I am not like all Beatles' fans you encountered. After all, I worked as a DJ/Producer in college (big whoop) and had to keep up with new music every week. To dismiss all fans of one band is way too simplistic. C'mon, us Beatles' fans are not Yankees fans. When someone asks me what is my favorite band, I have a tough time answering it because I love Soundgarden, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Boston, Journey, Florence + The Machine, The Shins, Mellencamp, and many many others. I then ask the questioner, "of all time?" If that's the case, it is The Beatles...without hesitation or equivocation.”
I kind of agree with what Bobby said here about there always being exceptions. Drew, I think you’re a bit of an exception, even though you wound up mostly passing my two question test. I just can’t believe anyone would OBJECTIVELY choose the Beatles as their favorite band. Drew, I think if you would have gotten a hold of “Houses of the Holy” rather than “Rubber Soul,” you’d be a huge Zeppelin fan instead. Just in terms of pure objectivity, the Beatles are not terribly interesting lyrically and musically (from what I heard, which I fully admit is limited to mainly hits). Does rock music as we know it exist today without them? Of course not. But Lamborghinis don’t exist with a Model T. And There Will Be Blood doesn’t exist without Citizen Kane. And Rayman: Legends doesn’t exist without Mario. It’s not a bad thing for innovations to be iterated on, and we all benefit as a result.
Really, what it all boils down to is this question: let’s just pretend the Beatles came along today in today’s music scene. Somehow, everything developed the same way, and Beatles show up on the scene in 2014. Do they catch on in the mainstream? Indie scene? Stoner scene? I would guess they probably catch on to an extent, but I doubt they’re “bigger than Jesus.” And I’m not just picking on the Beatles with this example – I think it applies to a lot of entertainment. “I Love Lucy” would have been cancelled in 13 weeks. A lot of 80’s comedies would have never been made now. (What does a 2014 version of “Major League” look like?) Even other classic bands would not have caught on. My favorite classic rock group, Led Zeppelin, would probably be stoner rock and opening for The Sword or something.
In closing, I could have used a lot of examples for my Major League point, but the Beatles is just the one that occurs the most often. Loving them for nostalgia sake is fine, and I have no issue with that. The people that really confuse me are the people that fall in love with the Beatles as adults. You’ve heard other music, and it was almost certainly better by any objective measure.
In Phil fashion, I will reply.
ReplyDelete“The Beatles get mimicked when bands don't even know they are doing it.
"I’m glad you didn’t go full bore down the path of “music as it is now wouldn’t exist today if it weren’t for the Beatles.” I always hate that argument. Still though, if I had to summarize my stance on the Beatles, it’s pretty simple: I greatly respect what they did for music, but that doesn’t mean I have to love all their songs, or even like many of their songs."
You hate that argument? Is it because it is the truth? If you hate that argument, that probably means you don't know the state of music before them. Yes, there was Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis, but Elvis went into the Army when The Beatles broke into the American music scene and Jerry Lee Lewis had his "robbing the cradle" moment and was done. The Beatles hit the stage with enthusiasm singing about girls. It was the change they brought to the music scene that is their legacy; not to mention their evolution as a band and accomplishing all of those things before turning 30. Without The Beatles, there is no Zeppelin, Stones and Who. No Ozzy, Nirvana, or Foo Fighters. Are you truly comfortable hating that argument?
"“I can think of three big hits from Oasis: "Wonderwall," "Champagne Supernova," and "Don't Look Back in Anger." I can think of twenty - seven number one hits from the Beatles so let's contrast.
Since when have “popular” and “good” meant the same thing? Katy Perry had five #1 songs on “Teenage Dream.” Is that the best CD of all time? By the criterion you’re laying out here, you have to put it in the conversation."
Fair enough. Name the other "good" songs by Oasis. I mean, not all of The Beatles' twenty - seven number one hits were "good" songs. I can admit that about seven were not. Then again, if it isn't "good," then who is hearing it?
"An alien absolute would pick Wonderwall over All You Need is Love. How did the writing session for All You Need Is Love go? “Hey, this song is 78 seconds long.” “Can we just repeat ‘All You Need Is Love’ for 3 and half minutes to get it to 4:18?” “Uh, sure, let’s go drink warm beer.” I’m not going to sit here and act like I know the Beatles catalog inside and out, but it feels like a lot of their stuff is lyrically… lacking? Once again, I respect them, but I don’t particularly enjoy them."
Seriously? Lyrically lacking? You do understand the Lennon/McCartney writing partnership is considered one of, if not the greatest duo of all time, right? If you really buy into the that line of thinking, then you don't understand context in which "All You Need is Love" was written. The "studio" version - the one that was on the album and radio - was recorded during a worldwide live television event. There was crowd involvement in that song. Context, sir, I say context!
“Now, Phil specifically mentioned Oasis as iterating The Beatles. The Beatles were a four member band with each member playing an instrument and singing. Oasis had (have?) five members and more or less resemble The Rolling Stones.
"It’s about sound, not band composition. Moving on."
You suggest Oasis sounds like The Beatles? That couldn't be any further from the truth. What Beatles song does "Don't Look Back in Anger" resemble? "Wonderwall?" Does Liam Gallagher sound like John Lennon? McCartney? Harrison? Does the drummer play like Ringo? I'm confused where you find Oasis comparable to The Beatles on sound. Help me out.
To the main part of my argument. This nostalgia thing. Here is what I said and your response.
ReplyDelete“I turned on to them when I was teenager because I would rather listen to Rubber Soul (one of their better albums) than any rap or the pop shit on the mainstream radio during the mid to late 90s. When I heard the White Album, Revolver, and Abbey Road, I was sold.
"Right off the bat you’re proving my nostalgia point. I’m fairly convinced that people develop their lifelong musical taste sometime in that 16-21 age range. I think a lot of our generation gravitated toward classic rock of some kind because the mainstream primarily gave us boy bands and rap rock like Limp Bizkit and Rage Against The Machine (topic for another day – why it’s cool to still like RATM and shit on Limp Bizkit for being rap rock when RATM is also rap rock.)"
Here is the definition of "nostalgia" according to dictionary.com: "a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nostalgia). To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I am nostalgic of my high school and college days. I mean, I wish I could go back and attempt to talk to Sara more. That girl was/is something else but I never chose The Beatles due to nostalgia. I chose them, Boston, Nirvana, Soundgarden, AIC, RATM, Beastie Boys, Stones, Zeppelin, Who, etc., because their music was better than Kid Rock, Oasis, 98 Degrees, and Backstreet Boys. How can anyone objectively claim it was out of nostalgia? Because I was nostalgic of a time with better music? I don't think so.
We also have to bear in mind the mid to late 90s brought us great bands like Bush, Matchbox Twenty, The Goo Goo Dolls, KoRn, Godsmack, and Linkin Park and Alanis Morrissette. While I listened to those bands and really enjoyed them, I kept returning to The Beatles. "Dear Prudence" was the 60s version of "Iris," and "Glycerine." The use of a sitar in "Norwegian Wood (This Bird has Flown)" was as revolutionary as Jonathan Davis' use of bagpipes in "Shoots and Ladders." The integration of unconventional sounds in "Tomorrow Never Knows" and the Sgt. Pepper album made bands like Linkin Park do a cool mixture of rap/rock.
It isn't my longing for a time of better music that made me like The Beatles, it's that I see their influence in almost every band that makes me realize their importance and that I can appreciate today's music. I love rock music and always will and that is because of The Beatles.
“You hate that argument? Is it because it is the truth?”
ReplyDeleteI hate that argument b/c it has nothing to do with how they would stack up to today’s bands if they were starting now. That’s why I asked the inane 2014 hypothetical. Not to belabor the point, but no one says the Model T is their favorite car. Every other car on earth would not exist without the Model T. But no one is choosing to drive a Model T over a Lambo. I RESPECT what they did for music, but that does not mean I have to put them in my top 5, top 10, or even top 20.
“Seriously? Lyrically lacking? You do understand the Lennon/McCartney writing partnership is considered one of, if not the greatest duo of all time, right? If you really buy into the that line of thinking, then you don't understand context in which "All You Need is Love" was written. The "studio" version - the one that was on the album and radio - was recorded during a worldwide live television event. There was crowd involvement in that song. Context, sir, I say context!”
Remember my “Taxi Driver” review where I said I’m not going to give bonus points for social commentary I cannot relate to? Why would I do the same here? I don’t care about the context b/c I cannot experience. I’m sorry, it’s a goofy song that’s fun to sing drunk. Nothing wrong with that. The modern day equivalent to this is what the Foo Fighters are doing for “Sonic Highways.” I don’t care that you’re recording in eight different studios… Just make a good record dammit.
“You suggest Oasis sounds like The Beatles? That couldn't be any further from the truth.”
This is fair. I cannot come up with a modern day equivalent to the Beatles. You know why? B/c, like I said already, if a band came along now that sounded like a carbon-copy of the Beatles, they wouldn’t be that popular. Can someone help me out with a modern equivalent to the Beatles?! We have a Led Zeppelin (Wolfmother), Black Sabbath (too many to count), Iron Maiden (again, too many to count), but I can’t come up with a Beatles equivalent.
“To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."”
This I will absolutely concede. You’re right, nostaglia is the wrong word. Let’s go with “impressionable.” Your music taste is at its most impressionable point in that 16-21 range, and any band you hook onto at that time is going to be a band you’re not rational about. I will admit I’m not rational about the Counting Crows, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, early Metallica, and Led Zeppelin. Those were the bands I gravitated toward at that point in my life. There are also a handful of bands that I know are objectively not very good that I still like from that era – Staind, Disturbed, Godsmack (Drew, Godsmack is not a “great” band by any objective measure… what are you doing having them in that list), probably some goofy rap I can’t remember, etc.
“It isn't my longing for a time of better music that made me like The Beatles, it's that I see their influence in almost every band that makes me realize their importance and that I can appreciate today's music. I love rock music and always will and that is because of The Beatles.”
ReplyDeleteI’m going to circle back to what brought us here: comedy. I think it’s fair to say that comedy and music are the two most subjective entertainment mediums we have. Comedy demands that we draw on our own experiences to find humor in something new. Music can have a touch of nostalgia to it – I can’t listen to Led Zeppelin with thinking back to the amazing JRPG’s of the PSOne b/c I would constantly listen to Zeppelin while kicking Sephiroth’s ass – but there must be something that happens in our formative years that really shapes our music taste. The way you feel about the Beatles actually sounds a lot like how I feel about Iron Maiden. I absolutely love thrash and speed metal, and you can pretty quickly trace all those bands back to Iron Maiden. I would say, objectively, most of those bands are better than Iron Maiden though, but I love a lot of that stuff because of Iron Maiden.
Drew, I think you’ve swayed me on some of my stance. If someone wants to say “The Beatles is my favorite band” then I’m fine with that. Once again, music is very subjective. If you want to say “The Beatles are the most important band in rock music history,” I’ll probably give them that or at least understand their POV. Now, if someone says “The Beatles are the best band of all time,” then I have a problem, due to the iteration thing I discussed earlier. So, in short, those are the people I have a problem with, and I think that’s what I’ve really been harping against all along.
(Btw, take notes here debate fans…. What I just did is “reframed the argument.” It’s like turning 9/11 terrorists into Saddam Hussain.)
Whoops need to edit myself on one thing...
ReplyDelete"Once again, music is very subjective."
Should read...
Once again, music TASTE is very subjective.
Important distinction there.