John's catalogue wuould be smaller, but stronger, if he hadn't been Yoko-tized.

I did like Harrison's triple album, though.

Erm, no, subby. Bad subby.

/read "unseeded" and thought "onoz!"

O-ver-ra-ted!

Seriously, it's a bunch of whiney namby-pamby BS. McCartney and Harrison both had a better ear for music and were far less pretentious in their craftmanship.

Birth Control 2 Major Tom: El Chode: O-ver-ra-ted!

Seriously, it's a bunch of whiney namby-pamby BS. McCartney and Harrison both had a better ear for music and were far less pretentious in their craftmanship.

Uh, you do know that "Yesterday" was to be called "Scrambled Eggs" until he played it for John, right?

Well there you have it, a single anecdote used to prove Lennon was the best, least pretentious Beatle.

New DIGG SUCKS! oops, wrong hate-fest!

Birth Control 2 Major Tom: Before you guys jump on Subby, keep in mind that he had at least one album wherein one side is him having sex with Yoko.

Also, "All Things Must Pass" is by far the best post-Beatles album any of them released.

Discuss.

I agree with you. And I don't think subby is that far off base. Certainly not to the extent people are saying. Plastic Ono Band was achingly brilliant, but the rest of Lennon's solo output was spotty. Good, at times brilliant, but spotty. Most people will do fine with a best of package.

Harrison's solo output was eclectic, experimental, and when it was good, it was fantastic. I won't say it's better than Lennon's overall -- mostly people will laugh hysterically at something like Electronic Sound (but not me) -- but it certainly wasn't worse.

And yes, All Things Must Pass is for sure the best of the post-Beatles records. Only Plastic Ono Band comes close.

All IMO, of course.

El Chode [recently expired TotalFark] Quote 2010-09-01 11:52:18 AM
O-ver-ra-ted!

Seriously, it's a bunch of whiney namby-pamby BS. McCartney and Harrison both had a better ear for music and HARRISON was far less pretentious in his craftmanship.

FTFY.

McCartney couldn't rock out if his life depended on it and writes extremely lightweight songs and we all know it. Lennon, for good or ill, had some deep emotional issues that took most of his life to work out.

The truth is that the Beatles were greater than the sum of its parts.

And Yoko is a leech.

douchebag/hater: El Chode [recently expired TotalFark] Quote 2010-09-01 11:52:18 AM
O-ver-ra-ted!

Seriously, it's a bunch of whiney namby-pamby BS. McCartney and Harrison both had a better ear for music and HARRISON was far less pretentious in his craftmanship.

FTFY.

McCartney couldn't rock out if his life depended on it and writes extremely lightweight songs and we all know it. Lennon, for good or ill, had some deep emotional issues that took most of his life to work out.

The truth is that the Beatles were greater than the sum of its parts.

And Yoko is a leech.

I can't really argue any of that. But I will say that, at their core, the beatles were always lightweight and didn't do anything heavy until other people did it first and Bob Dylan gave the boys a joint.

I am slowly coming to the realization that our society will never be rid of the Beatles.

Glockgraduation: I am slowly coming to the realization that our society will never be rid of the Beatles.

When the Boomers die off, so will some of the Beatles-heavy "best band evar, all the members are demigods"

And then it will get so much worse when Nirvana takes their place.

Plastic Ono Band > All Things Must Pass > Ram > Band on the Run > Imagine > Ringo > Lennon's songs on Double Fantasy > McCartney II

The other Beatles solo albums beyond this are pretty weak except for a couple songs per album.

Birth Control 2 Major Tom: I think we can all agree that McCartney's "Having a Wonderful Christmas" is among the worst things ever done by a formerly great artist.

Give My Regards to Broad Street is a very close second....Screw you McCartney.

El Chode: Glockgraduation: I am slowly coming to the realization that our society will never be rid of the Beatles.

When the Boomers die off, so will some of the Beatles-heavy "best band evar, all the members are demigods"

But only some. The Beatles continue to gain new fans with each generation. Sixth graders with Beatles shirts? You bet.

I don't think Beatles love is going anywhere anytime soon.

douchebag/hater: McCartney couldn't rock out if his life depended on it and writes extremely lightweight songs and we all know it. Lennon, for good or ill, had some deep emotional issues that took most of his life to work out.

The truth is that the Beatles were greater than the sum of its parts.

Spot on. They were all pretty great at what they did, but taken singularly none of them would (or could) have been game-changers in the world of music. Put 'em all together, though, and they become something different.

It's like how Iron Man and Thor and Captain America are all pretty okay on their own, but nothing SUPER special, yet when you put them together you get the Avengers, right?

Right guys?

...

Hey guys! Where are you going?

shoegaze99: El Chode: Glockgraduation: I am slowly coming to the realization that our society will never be rid of the Beatles.

When the Boomers die off, so will some of the Beatles-heavy "best band evar, all the members are demigods"

But only some. The Beatles continue to gain new fans with each generation. Sixth graders with Beatles shirts? You bet.

I don't think Beatles love is going anywhere anytime soon.

And you want to know why? Because they are a great band with a bunch of really well put-together, timeless albums.

I feel sorry for the people who are pissed off by this fact.

shoegaze99: But only some. The Beatles continue to gain new fans with each generation. Sixth graders with Beatles shirts? You bet.

I don't think Beatles love is going anywhere anytime soon.

No more than Elvis. 6th graders with a Beatles shirt is about as meaningful as Shakira wearing a Pink Floyd shirt. It's more about style than substance.

Birth Control 2 Major Tom: Yeah, let's write him off because you're a big Arcade Fire fan.

I have a well-established record of finding the Arcade Fire to be the most pretentious act around, short of Animal Collective. You'll have to find another band you've barely heard but know you should hate because they're not U2 to pin me on.

It won't be that hard.

El Chode: No more than Elvis. 6th graders with a Beatles shirt is about as meaningful as Shakira wearing a Pink Floyd shirt. It's more about style than substance.

If this is your belief, I suspect you don't actually know any sixth graders. The Beatles are beloved by many young people; not ironically, but "I love these songs."

0 118 999 881 999 119 7253: And you want to know why? Because they are a great band with a bunch of really well put-together, timeless albums.

Yep. People can gnash their teeth and attribute it to all sorts of things, but the bottom line is The Beatles wouldn't continue to be huge and wouldn't continue to build a fan base among young people if they didn't have the tunes to back it up.

And they DO continue to be popular and DO continue to build a fan base among young people.

The Baby Boomers really aren't the driving instrument in popular culture anymore. Children of the late '70s, 1980s, and to some extent early 1990s are. And The Beatles are highly praised among that generation, too.

shoegaze99: If this is your belief, I suspect you don't actually know any sixth graders. The Beatles are beloved by many young people; not ironically, but "I love these songs."

No, I typically avoid those under 18 so I don't get labeled as a creep.

Though I was once a 6th grader, and I don't think any claim of "loving" any band at that age is really valid since their exposure to the catalog most likely isn't all that deep.

Birth Control 2 Major Tom: U2? U first. No thanks.

I'm a huge Tom Waits fan. Have at it.

Excellent deflection. I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to "have at" though.

My goodness I wonder who could have submitted another intentionally inflammatory headline to the music tab.

Birth Control 2 Major Tom: Yeah, you don't know what you're on about, to be sure. Oh well, I like most of the things you post about, just not this subject.

Tell me how Bach was overrated.

Alright, I want to be clear: You and the other person are actually claiming that 6th graders are bellwethers of quality, respectable music.

El Chode: You and the other person are actually claiming that 6th graders are bellwethers of quality, respectable music.

You might want to go back and read again. I'm disputing the mistaken idea that The Beatles will disappear from the popular landscape once the Baby Boomers are gone. They won't, because they continue to generate new fans, genuine fans, even among young people.

A separate but related discussion is one of longevity; if a band manages to have the kind of long-term popularity The Beatles have enjoyed, it probably means there is something more going on than a popular trend.

Popularity in and of itself doesn't indicate quality, never has, never will, but popularity sustained over 50 years certainly does indicate an act resonating with a broad range of people from many backgrounds and many age grounds.

It'd probably be hard to do that if you sucked. Possible? Maybe. But not probable.

shoegaze99: You might want to go back and read again. I'm disputing the mistaken idea that The Beatles will disappear from the popular landscape once the Baby Boomers are gone. They won't, because they continue to generate new fans, genuine fans, even among young people.

I'm not saying they'll disappear, I'm just saying they won't be the holy grail of music. Hence, the Elvis analogy. Though I think Elvis will likely fade more than the Beatles will since the one thing Beatles did better was expand their sound across more genres than Elvis or Nirvana.

I am predicting that Nirvana will only get "more revered" as Gen X and my generation becomes the key demographic to market nostalgia to.

shoegaze99: It'd probably be hard to do that if you sucked. Possible? Maybe. But not probable.

I think Nickelback will be a good case-study on this in 20-30 years

El Chode: Though I think Elvis will likely fade more than the Beatles will since the one thing Beatles did better was expand their sound across more genres than Elvis or Nirvana.

Agreed. Even now Elvis popularity is kind of quaint and skews older ... and I say that as someone who kind of likes Elvis. Early Elvis, at least. I haven't seen all that much in the way of new Elvis fandom, though. I honestly have among the Beatles.

I am predicting that Nirvana will only get "more revered" as Gen X and my generation becomes the key demographic to market nostalgia to.

This is already happening to a large extent. Kurt Cobain has been canonized and the story of Nirvana's impact seems to get larger with each telling.

No doubt they had a huge, huge impact on popular music, but anyone who was immersed in it at the time will tell you that they were just one of many ignition factors. Bands like Jane's Addiction and REM and the Pixies and other crossover successes paved the way for that whole Seattle scene, and Nirvana itself were just one piece of that whole puzzle.

The secret is getting shot. Whether by a crazed fan or a crazed wife, just get shot.

El Chode: shoegaze99: It'd probably be hard to do that if you sucked. Possible? Maybe. But not probable.

I think Nickelback will be a good case-study on this in 20-30 years

:shudder:

someone hold me

shoegaze99: Agreed. Even now Elvis popularity is kind of quaint and skews older ... and I say that as someone who kind of likes Elvis. Early Elvis, at least. I haven't seen all that much in the way of new Elvis fandom, though. I honestly have among the Beatles.

I'm in the same boat as far as being a fan of Elvis, but I think the key thing to longevity is to be cited by popular artists. Elvis songs are still covered quite a bit, and I think (as far as 6th graders go especially) songs like "Hound Dog" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand" will always be embedded in the public psyche and keep the names alive. The difference is that Elvis has songs, while the Beatles have Albums. Nirvana does a little of both.

shoegaze99: This is already happening to a large extent. Kurt Cobain has been canonized and the story of Nirvana's impact seems to get larger with each telling.

No doubt they had a huge, huge impact on popular music, but anyone who was immersed in it at the time will tell you that they were just one of many ignition factors. Bands like Jane's Addiction and REM and the Pixies and other crossover successes paved the way for that whole Seattle scene, and Nirvana itself were just one piece of that whole puzzle.

The secret is getting shot. Whether by a crazed fan or a crazed wife, just get shot.

Anyone who knows music knows that Nirvana was the tip of the iceberg. But being the "be all, end all of great bands" relies a lot more on non-music snobs recognizing it as something big, regardless of its merits. I think the best way to explain is was that Rolling Stone gave Nevermind like half a star when it was released I think, then named it album of the decade or whatever in 1999.

Birth Control 2 Major Tom: Been teaching guitar for 23 years now, full time. Every...day, I spend hours teaching kids how to play stuff like Day Tripper and Here Comes the Sun at their request. I don't cram the stuff in their brains; they love love love the Beatles. I never make a child learn stuff they have an aversion to, and I couldn't if I wanted to.

But you're looking at it from a selective perspective. As someone who also picked up guitar at that age, if you based "6th graders taste in music" on me you'd assume we all listened to Hendrix, Zeppelin, Beatles, etc, and maybe were even hip enough to know who Warren Haynes and Phish were (Gov't Mule's cover of She Said, She Said turned me on to the Beatles). Someone taking guitar lessons will already be predisposed to have an elevated taste in music.

But if guitar geeks determined popular taste, Jeff Beck would probably be a lot more popular in the public psyche and Metallica would have been neutered far earlier.

Personally, I burned out on them long ago, but only an idiot would fail to notice we're arguing about them 40 years after they broke up and almost 50 since they formed. How on Earth can you sit there and say the stuff you do, especially given how sharp and witty you normally are? I'm not trying to piss you off or patronize you, but you're wrong. It's just that simple.

I don't think my premises are far-fetched:

1) Lennon wasn't as great as McCartney or Harrison
2) The Beatles didn't get good until Bob Dylan gave them a joint
3a) Early Beatles are a different beast than experimental, psychedelic Beatles
4) They will not be the holy grail of music forever. That does not mean they are going to fade into obscurity, either.

And, to key in on your earlier comment, the Arcade Fire I think is the next band poised to become the "BEST BAND EVAR!!!!!1!". But we'll have to see if Win gets shot.

Tell you guys what...

Here's a song by George about John.

Understandable = reissue of catalog
Unnecessary = remake of Yellow Submarine

Harrison had the greatest solo album by far, but overall John's was great for the limited number there were. 2 or 3 were flat throwaways, but Plastic Ono Band, Sometime in NY, Imagine, Mind Games, Walls & Bridges, & Double Fantasy were all good. Some were great. He had more of them than Harrison or McCartney.

El Chode: Glockgraduation: I am slowly coming to the realization that our society will never be rid of the Beatles.

When the Boomers die off, so will some of the Beatles-heavy "best band evar, all the members are demigods"

And then it will get so much worse when Nirvana takes their place.

Considering that my mother never misses Beatles-Fest in Chicago every year and it is always packed with people of all ages I don't think you'll ever see it go away. I am fine with that. I still remember the day that my adolescent mind put together that one band was responsible for all the great music my mom played when I was a tyke.

George Harrison wrote a couple of good songs, but none during his solo career.

Mostly, on his own, he was a fine movie producer.

shoegaze99: El Chode: Though I think Elvis will likely fade more than the Beatles will since the one thing Beatles did better was expand their sound across more genres than Elvis or Nirvana.

Agreed. Even now Elvis popularity is kind of quaint and skews older ... and I say that as someone who kind of likes Elvis. Early Elvis, at least. I haven't seen all that much in the way of new Elvis fandom, though. I honestly have among the Beatles.

I am predicting that Nirvana will only get "more revered" as Gen X and my generation becomes the key demographic to market nostalgia to.

This is already happening to a large extent. Kurt Cobain has been canonized and the story of Nirvana's impact seems to get larger with each telling.

No doubt they had a huge, huge impact on popular music, but anyone who was immersed in it at the time will tell you that they were just one of many ignition factors. Bands like Jane's Addiction and REM and the Pixies and other crossover successes paved the way for that whole Seattle scene, and Nirvana itself were just one piece of that whole puzzle.

The secret is getting shot. Whether by a crazed fan or a crazed wife, just get shot.

Cobain just copied Neil Young. That's all.

El Chode: No more than Elvis. 6th graders with a Beatles shirt is about as meaningful as Shakira wearing a Pink Floyd shirt. It's more about style than substance.

shiat man, my four-year-old niece has two homemade Beatles dresses and she says they are her favorite band. We indoctrinate them early just to piss people like you off. My personal goal is to start a quiverfull type movement just to create more Beatles fans.

yakmans_dad: George Harrison wrote a couple of good songs, but none during his solo career.

Making someone listen to side two of Live Peace in Toronto should be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

dholway [TotalFark] Quote 2010-09-01 02:04:57 PM
Birth Control 2 Major Tom: Uh, you do know that "Yesterday" was to be called "Scrambled Eggs" until he played it for John, right?

No. It wasn't.

It was his working title when he first came up with the tune. There was a good Beatles biography published by Hunter Davies in 1968 where Paul recants the story.

Sorry, not recants. tells the story.

robsul82: Yeah, wrong, subby.

No. Right.

A whole slew of unneeded, unwanted, and useless reissues will be released on what would have been John Lennon's 70th birthday. Think about it; his solo catalogue was pretty weak compared to Harrison


John's solo stuff is just flat out boring. Sure, Paul never really grew past being the love song writer, and Ringo never grew at all. And Subby's right, Harrison has the strongest solo material of all. But John's albums put me to sleep.