Greatest Album in Rock History...

[GMichael]

That's just nonsense. I can't think of any kind way to describe it. They weren't just pop or just deep, they had both aspects and every level in between. It's a rare combination you don't see too often - The Police had it and, to a lesser extent, Steely Dan and Supertramp, maybe a few others. The Beatles attracted plenty of heavy musos in the 60's, tons of 'em. Every prog rock act in the U.K. flourished under their wings. It's a fact. Right from the Beatles first recording years they were doing something new and radical. Dylan talked about hearing them the first time on a car radio with his buddies. They were laughing at the lyrics ("She Loves You") and he laughed with them but he listened to the chords they were playing and inside he knew these guys were damned good.

There are a lot of people on this forum who would agree with you but, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks The Beatles (or The Police for that matter) weren't "deep" can get a clue. And please people, stop with this "I appreciate how significant they were" crap. If you don't understand how good they were as just four guys with musical instruments then you won't really understand why they were influential.

So, today the Best Album In Rock History is Rubber Soul.

I really do understand why they were influential. I lived through it in the 60's. Watched them on the Ed Sulivan(sp) show the first time. I just never fell in love with them like my sister did. I like them, own a few of their CD's and understand very well why they were influential.

[nobody]

I have to admit I do find it a bit off putting when for some reason Beatle fandom is somehow seen as mandatory. I've heard more than once the remark...if you don't like the Beatles, you just don't like music, for example.

It's like somehow people get really annoyed or confused if you don't like the Beatles. I mean, I can sorta understand that as many bands I really like just seem so obvious that it is hard for me to understand how anyone can listen and not just instantly get it on a real basic level and just dig the tunes and all that. But, some people just don't. And if I can understand, or at least accept, that some people say don't really dig the Ramones...why isn't it OK for people to not really dig the Beatles?

Seems many people just have a low tolerance for differences in opinion concerning certain bands. And the Beatles seem to top this list from what I've seen.

[kexodusc]

Whether the alternatives are "exponentially greater" is a highly debatable can of worms. I would argue that they are not.

You misunderstand, not greater in quality (which is subjective anyway, I agree and I wouldn't open that can of worms ), but exponentially greater in quantity of good musicians...perhaps I didn't explain clearly - I went in reverse, so I had the luxury of listening to time's greatest bands from early 2000's back, before I ever took the Beatles seriously...and in so doing, I wasn't comparing them to just the pre-1960's stuff, or the Beatles-era peers, but to everything before, during, and after the Beatles. There's been a helluva lot of good music the last 50 years and IMHO some of what Rock evolved into is better than some of what it used to be. Not that the old stuff doesn't retain its charm.

That's probably because I put a high premium on innovation, possibly too much, and nobody, nobody, pulled ahead of the crowd in their time farther than the Beatles. There's not even a close second. But you bring up a great point about subjectively listening to music within its timeframe. It's an extremely difficult thing to do for someone coming along later. It doesn't come naturally to go back and listen to, say, older jazz and automatically understand who was really good, who were the innovators and who were the followers. In fact, by the early 70s, the Beatles were considered old-hat for the vast majority of teenagers who were wowed by Alice Cooper or Black Sabbath.

I can't argue your first statement, but you don't need to be a Beatles fan-boy to see they dominated their era...

Judging from that statement, I would say you would have to realize the bar had not been raised at all.

A little condescending...
Relatively speaking, the competition to the Beatles is much stronger if we expand the time period to include subsequent decades, rather than restrict it to the time they were active. Music became far more diverse. Simple math..there's just more good music to choose from so the Beatles get less play time at Kex mansion. That brings the average up, raises the bar...History has a great bias when it comes to music...few remember all the crap that also ran with legends of any particular era, so when someone samples the past, they're generally only sampling the survivors, the artists whose music endures.

Also, I don't believe Rock reached its peak with the Beatles and that everything since has been 2nd best to their works. In terms of the number of hits, albums and success they had, there aren't many who could compete quantitatively or qualitatively.

No. I listen to classical music and, in fact, that's exactly my situation with Beethoven. I recognize and acknowledge the impact but I don't understand it because I don't understand his music.

See the difference? It's not just a matter of semantics

.
No, I'm sorry, I don't see what your point in all this is other than to dictate to me what comments I can make.
You started this by ordering that I "stop with this "I appreciate how significant they were" crap."
I am afraid you continued by invoking some requirement to understand their music at some arbitrary level before having any moral authority to comment on their contribution to music..."If you don't understand how good they were as just four guys with musical instruments then you won't really understand why they were influential." That's BS. I'll appreciate what I wish, for whatever reason I choose. I don't believe I have to understand why they were influential to know that they were in order to give them that respect, even if I do understand why they were influential.

For the record, again, I have stated I like them somewhat, enough to pay for their music and continue to spin it on occassion. I've stated "but I like other bands more.."
The disconnect is that you have implied I don't understand their impact on music...guess I'm just not fit to join the club. Why can't I like the Beatles, like other bands more, and understand why they were influential? And how much I have to like the Beatles before I can understand why they were influential...Do they have to be in my top 10 favorite bands of all time? My top 5? What's your benchmark here so I know what I have to do to reach the appropriate level of musical enlightenment?

Half the problem is realizing that something is great, in part, because it simply didn't exist before it existed.

Hells Yeah! And this is a big reason I can respect what they did...though I may prefer other musicians, I recognize they were pioneers and that rock as I know it today wouldn't have evolved into what it is without them.

It's tough to get the full artistic and emotional impact of something when it was new by looking backwards through history and comparing it to a newer guitarist who used more distortion or a newer drummer who played faster or whatever. I see people do that all the time and they miss the point.

On this we can agree...in an unfair way, it becomes "less original" when you hear their art in the works of other musicians first, even if chronologically they were the original. Actually, that was my point.

The thing is, Beethoven doesn't have a ton of cultural baggage surrounding his legacy and the Beatles do, so I'm always disappointed and a little suspicious when people feel they have to acknowledge the legacy even though they don't like the music.

You're probably right here, but to this guy the image and cultural stuff is completely a non-factor. I don't put much value on that stuff for current music, well I suppose on some level we all do subconsciously, but I can only evaluate the music because I don't have the luxury of living through the times to use the culture to put the music into perspective. Which furthers my point - without the context of the culture of the day, it's harder for me to like them...but there's lots of other music from decades ago that I don't need cultural context in order to get in to.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I fill my room to 90+ dB when I play Helter Skelter. <== Is that Elvis? That's not Elvis is it? I hated Elvis.

[GMichael]

How could you hate Elvis? He was one of the most influential artists of all times!

Ok, you got me. I was just joking.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Elvis stole Jerry Lee Lewis's thunder (but not his 13 y/o wife... or was that cousin... or both? )

[GMichael]

You're just jealous because your 13 year old cousin turned you down.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Well, that's either mediocre satire or poor history. Dislike of Elvis aside, is this actually what you believe?

[GMichael]

Put me down for option number 1.

[nobody]

I pretty much feel about Elvis the way some others feel about the Beatles. How could you hate Elvis? Isn't it just obvious from listening that he was amazing?

He topped the charts from beyond the grave he was so awesome.

[GMichael]

And he makes even more money now than he did when he was alive. Go figure.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I didn't like Elvis myself for a long time, though my exposure to him was limited & I grew up in a rock-hating household, one where any and all rock was considered equally worthless on every level. I liked the Beatles from childhood. But I eventually heard Elvis while trying to hear it with different ears, sort of what I suggested above. That I heard the Sun Sessions whereas before all I'd really heard was some of the weaker 70s material along with bites from the early RCA hits made a big difference. I can't see anyone who claims to appreciate rock denying the Sun Sessions, but to each their own.

It was the comment about Elvis relative to Jerry Lee that I was curious about. Elvis was topping the charts many months prior to Jerry Lee Lewis showing up at Sun, so I'm wondering if there's any backup for that statement, or if it was meant as a joke. I've encountered people who've said similar things and actually believed it to be true, otherwise I'd just dismiss it as a weak joke.

If someone legitimately dislikes Elvis but loves Jerry Lee Lewis that strikes me as odd, but I have no issue with it.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Well, that's either mediocre satire or poor history. Dislike of Elvis aside, is this actually what you believe?

My mind is more haywire than yours my friend...

[BradH]

...but you don't need to be a Beatles fan-boy to see they dominated their era...

If I was a Beatles fan-boy I would say everything they did was great. But I think the Let It Be album sucks.

What's your benchmark here so I know what I have to do to reach the appropriate level of musical enlightenment?

Beats me. A Beatles wig maybe? Seriously, to me it just stretches the bounds of credulity to think someone who doesn't like their music is going to recognize that influence in all the places it exists.

Seems many people just have a low tolerance for differences in opinion concerning certain bands.

Seems you have a low tolerance for anyone expressing a positive opinion about the Beatles in particular. If someone explains at length why they were great, you'd complain about Beatles fans going on and on. If they say fine, you either get it or you don't, you'd say that was cult-like and quasi-mystical nonsense. We've been down this road before so it's less time consuming for me to just tell everyone to get a clue. Because no matter how many long ass posts J or I do on this subject it isn't gonna make anyone listen with fresh ears.

[nobody]

Probably just goes back to certain groups or artists eliciting strong reactions and coming with a lot of baggage. Almost impossible to have a discussion about say The Beatles, Elvis, or other such mega-stars without dragging a whole bunch of pre-determined feelings into the thing and drawing on a whole pile of past conversations, writings, etc...

[Troy]

What was the question again?

Oh yeah, a self choking masturbator is a person that chokes themselves while masturbating . . . oh, wait.

I like the B-eatles a lot. So much great music, so much of it directly influencing all the crap being passed off as "new" rock today. I aint blind tho, "Let it Be" and more than half of the "White Album" is crap. It's just hip to hate the Beatles today. This is the cycle of such things. All geezers like us can do is to sit on our porch, nurse our can of PBR and shake our ancient, palsied fists at the insolent kids playing on our lawn who think their generation invented everything.

[BradH]

All geezers like us can do is to sit on our porch, nurse our can of PBR and shake our ancient, palsied fists at the insolent kids playing on our lawn who think their generation invented everything.

HaHa! Maybe that's what sticks in my craw. Imagine the kid on the lawn saying, "You look like crap in that rocker but I appreciate how you were a badass in your day."

HA!

[Auricauricle]

That's just nonsense. I can't think of any kind way to describe it. They weren't just pop or just deep, they had both aspects and every level in between. It's a rare combination you don't see too often - The Police had it and, to a lesser extent, Steely Dan and Supertramp, maybe a few others. The Beatles attracted plenty of heavy musos in the 60's, tons of 'em. Every prog rock act in the U.K. flourished under their wings. It's a fact. Right from the Beatles first recording years they were doing something new and radical. Dylan talked about hearing them the first time on a car radio with his buddies. They were laughing at the lyrics ("She Loves You") and he laughed with them but he listened to the chords they were playing and inside he knew these guys were damned good.

There are a lot of people on this forum who would agree with you but, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks The Beatles (or The Police for that matter) weren't "deep" can get a clue. And please people, stop with this "I appreciate how significant they were" crap. If you don't understand how good they were as just four guys with musical instruments then you won't really understand why they were influential.

So, today the Best Album In Rock History is Rubber Soul.

When I posted my thoughts concerning the Beatles and their "significance", I did not mean to imply that they were musically uninteresting or uninspired. Far from it, I think that the crew was very talented, and their music was, in many cases, crafted with great expertise. In using the word, "significance", I was referring to their influence on music in general, which has been touted as one of the most enduring of any rock group in history.

If my note has any trace of a denigrating tone, it pertains to my perceptions of the Beatles' music when I was quite younger and not as canny to their offering. I still am not a great believer, but I know talent and ability when I hear it, and these guys were the real deal.

As pertains to their "deepness", this is more a comment regarding perceptions of music listeners I have known, in general, and not a reflection of my sensibility of the music as such. The pubs described point to this dichotomy: There simply is a difference between Beatle Maniacs and Dead Heads. Yes, the Beats were heavy at times, but they were, I think, a feel-good band, as opposed to Deep Purple, Iron Butterfly and others who appealed to a different crowd.

Then again, if you listen to "Strawberry Fields" and say to yerself, "Whoa, that's heavy, man....", I guess there's nothing more to say, is there?

[ForeverAutumn]

... I grew up in a rock-hating household, one where any and all rock was considered equally worthless on every level. ...

Wow. I've gotta say, with your vast knowledge of rock history, that surprised the hell out of me.

[BradH]

Yes, the Beats were heavy at times, but they were, I think, a feel-good band, as opposed to Deep Purple, Iron Butterfly and others who appealed to a different crowd.

But the likes of Deep Purple and Iron Butterfly had a much, much more narrow range and were not in the ballpark when it came to making new music that opens new possibilites. And I actually like that sort of post-psych, pre-prog era in the late 60's inhabited by Floyd, Soft Machine, Family, the Moodys, Iron Butterfly, tons of stuff. But all that was done against the background radiation of what the Beatles had been throwing down every few months for years. I think the people who said the Beatles didn't rock hard enough just had a stricter view of what rock was supposed to be.

[emesbee]

But the likes of Deep Purple and Iron Butterfly had a much, much more narrow range and were not in the ballpark when it came to making new music that opens new possibilites. And I actually like that sort of post-psych, pre-prog era in the late 60's inhabited by Floyd, Soft Machine, Family, the Moodys, Iron Butterfly, tons of stuff. But all that was done against the background radiation of what the Beatles had been throwing down every few months for years. I think the people who said the Beatles didn't rock hard enough just had a stricter view of what rock was supposed to be.

Late 60s and early 70s is my favourite era (I was a teenager then, so that probably explains it). There were loads of great bands around, doing lots of different styles of music. A lot of really great stuff came out of those few years. It all got rather boring after that, though. (and has remained so ever since, in my opinion).

[RoadRunner6]

Late 60s and early 70s is my favourite era (I was a teenager then, so that probably explains it). There were loads of great bands around, doing lots of different styles of music. A lot of really great stuff came out of those few years. It all got rather boring after that, though. (and has remained so ever since, in my opinion).

You can say that again, Emesbee. Listen to Bob Dylan's All Along The Watchtower and then listen to Jimi Hendrix's cover of the same. I love both versions.

RR6

[bobsticks]

It was around post 100 or so when Kex "poo-poo'd" it, I "meh'd" it and Auri dropped the "pbab" down...and look what's happened to this thread.

HaHa! Maybe that's what sticks in my craw. Imagine the kid on the lawn saying, "You look like crap in that rocker but I appreciate how you were a badass in your day."

HA!

Well that's exactly it. Kex deftly explained that inherent in the generational gap is, well, a generational gap. If one experiences something first it will tend to leave a longer lasting impression. Besides, by the end of it you have to admit there was a little too much Yoko Special Sauce in the stir fry.

Further, it's gotta be said that, content aside, certain works can come off as rather archival.If Resident Loser were around I'm sure he would extoll the virtues of listening to A.M radio feeds or mono recordings, but he's not.Listening to the Beattles is like checking in with Robert Johnson or Edward R. Murrow. Sounds great, was that tupperware?

It's not that folks don't recognise that it was solid stuff, there's just things that many would prefer to listen to. No hatin' necessary. Besides, we know how great they were...you guys keep reminding us. Kurt Loder alone makes mention of it once a month, on the off weeks when Oasis isn't the King of the Hill.

This I believe.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Shouldn't you be asleep? I know I should.

Please keep in mind that we're not 'there is no good music anymore,' Resident Loser types. I think it's a matter of keeping things in context. I'm usually on the other side of this argument, and I'm not one to believe that any one creative work can be empirically 'better' from individual to individual. You will end up banging your head against the wall because a kid will prefer Fall Out Boy to Bob Dylan, or because someone else will prefer Crunk to Beethoven. It's the individual response of the listener that matters, so I have no quarrel with that, though I am not afraid to make my own judgments.

I do think a pretty strong case can be made that nobody in the last 50 years of popular music did as many things as they did as often as they did, as well as they did it, for as long as they did it. Thus my point about how they managed hits in spite of being ahead of their time. It's a point I do think is worthy of thought even though I know damn well hits don't necessarily have to mean anything. But it means something in this discussion, because it's the one thing that separates them from so many other artists who did so much great work for so long and were ahead of their time. You can deny the importance of this by pointing to any general top 40 list at virtually any given time to make a case that it's all crap, but it does mean something. And it means a lot here.

The thing is, I don't usually harp on it & I don't remember the last time I wrote posts that actually took a defensive posture on the subject. It's not necessary because everyone is entitled to their likes & dislikes & there's absolutely nothing superior in that I think I hear something that someone else may not. I also know damn well that everyone posting on this board is going to hear something I'm not in a given favorite recording.

I was listening to Paul McCartney being interviewed on the Howard Stern show this morning. He has a record out, Fireman. Sounded darned good, especially considering how little he's put out in the past 30+ years that didn't eat donkey dung.

nobody, I'm getting off a disc to you asap. PM me if your info has changed.

[BradH]

Besides, by the end of it you have to admit there was a little too much Yoko Special Sauce in the stir fry.

OMG, don't get me started on that mess. I never said Lennon wasn't batsh!t crazy.