Queen overtake the Beatles as most successful albums act in UK history (1 Viewer)

[andrew markworthy]

I don't think you can distinguish between a good energetic argument and being plain insulting, which, bluntly speaking, is what you are being. If you read carefully through the responses you'll see that most of them are responses to the arguments being made. There are joking or general insults which aren't meant to be taken personally, but nothing as immature as your direct attacks. I'm not offended, but I am concerned about you.

 

[RichP]

Oh, I suppose that calling people tone deaf isn't meant to be taken personally. If you're looking for immaturity Markworthy, look no further than right into your own posts as they exemplify everything that is wrong with threads of this kind.

 

[andrew markworthy]

RichP, note that in my comments there was nothing directed at an individual, and the same goes for the other grown-ups on this thread. It's called having an energetic argument, and most of us can manage this without thinking it's a personal threat. However, you seem determined to be a troll and cast personal insults.

I'm offering this as sincere advice - please don't behave like this outside this forum. People really don't like being insulted and you are acting in a very immature fashion. Just lighten up, for goodness's sake, and learn that there is a world of difference between trading friendly insults and getting personal.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Andrew and Rich,

I strongly suggest that at this point, the two of you simply ignore each other's posts in this thread if you want to continue participating in it. If you want to go back and forth with personal comments, please do it via email. Pretty please? I can't imagine that anyone else is really interested.

Let's keep this on topic, OK?

 

[RichP]

Then you should either apologize or refrain from insulting people in your future posts.

 

[Stu Rosen]

I don't think anyone is saying that the Beatles created rock music, any more than the early giants of film created motion pictures. At least I wasn't saying that.

What the Beatles did was take the R&B and blues-based music of Chuck Berry and Little Richard and combine it with a more pop-based approach. They expanded the notion (along with Dylan) - lyrically and in terms of instrumentation - of what a pop tune could be.

No, they didn't create rock music. They created a template that has proven remarkably durable and influential.

And I stand by what I and others have said. It's not an insult - and certainly no insult is intended - to suggest that the Beatles helped write the book, and that Queen was a popular band.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Agreed, but let's not forget the early work of The Who and The Kinks was also highly influential. Ditto The Beach Boys, Frank Zappa, etc.

 

[Michael Allred]

Ok, just to clarify (and correct me if I'm mistaken), you're basically saying that 1) The Beatles essentially helped create what R'n'R is today and 2) Queen were nothing more than simply being popular and had no lasting influence on music?

 

[Michael Allred]

I'm not ignoring the Beatles but it seems that you're saying the band was bigger than Elvis. Would the Beatles have been "The Beatles" if Elvis never existed?

 

[AnthonyC]

Maybe not, but there's no question that they were bigger than Elvis.

 

[Stu Rosen]

1. The Beatles didn't essentially help create what R&R is today. But R&R today would be an entirely different animal if they never came along.

2. Queen was nothing more than simply popular and had no significant lasting influence on music. An increased theatricality in rock, perhaps; a higher camp quotient; a pleasant goofiness that punctured a lot of rock pretentions while creating a brand new set of them; but no, they didn't move the ball forward, and they didn't redefine the game.

And, believe it or not, this really, truly isn't meant as an insult. There are tons of artists I like, some that I love, that were nothing more than accomplished craftsmen. Doesn't mean they're worthless - but it doesn't make them giants for the ages.

 

[Michael Allred]

Wow.......just....wow......

 

[Michael Allred]

So what exactly do you base this upon?

There are entire genres of music that the Beatles had little to no impact on, specifically hard rock and heavy metal that Queen heavily influenced.

How did the Beatles redefine music? What was it that they accomplished that shattered the music world? Tell me in your own words. I don't wanna hear what the media has thrown at us for years, define it clearly with a factual argument and not a fan based opinion. I'm curious to hear why you think the way you do.

 

[Stu Rosen]

OK - first of all, I thought the very nature of this thread was that it was purely subjective - there's no chance I could ever persuade you of my point of view.

But I will say that you don't have to like the Beatles to appreciate what they are and what they mean. I'm not a big opera fan, for example, but I don't think that opera is lacking in anything. It just doesn't move me.

I could tell you a lot of things the Beatles did that built the foundation for a lot that followed them - the use of the studio as an instrument, in which a recording need no longer be merely an approximation of a live performance. Or the fact that they expanded the palate of instruments and arrangements way past the pop singles that preceded theirs. Or the fact that lyrically, the group (along with Dylan) blew away all limits constraining what a pop song could be about. Or the fact that the songs just plain hold up after all these years, from their earliest pop songs through Abbey Road (released before Let it Be but recorded after). Or, amazingly, that it all happened in about 6 years.

And no doubt you'll cite this song or that album by some other group or artist that pre-dated the Beatles, thus trying to undercut their influence. But anyone - whether you like the Beatles or not - who's playing fair will give them their props.

You may think the Beatles had little or no impact on hard rock and heavy metal. Many hard rock and heavy metal icons would plainly disagree with you. You're looking for a heavy metal song to sound like the Beatles, and that's unlikely to happen. What the Beatles did, though, was tell a bunch of 10-year-old future musicians that there were no limits on what they could do. A song - a hit song - could be 8 minutes. It could be the performance of a full orchestra, an acoustic guitar, or anything in between. It could be a boy/girl love song, or it could be so abstract as to be almost impenetrable. And they paved the way for showing how the arc of a career could be - that you didn't have to mine a simple formula, but you could go from With the Beatles to Rubber Soul to the White Album and do it in half the time it takes some stars to create a single album.

That - not simply the copying of a group's sound - is influence.

The wildest thing I've heard, though, is your suggestion that the "media" has rammed the Beatles down anyone's throats. When hundreds of millions of people respond to something, that doesn't mean you have to like it; frankly, that's enough to make some foolish people suspicious about the value of music that's so popular. But you discount the Beatles' value at your peril.

Listen, there are two schools of thought - One is that it's all a matter of personal taste, that one person can worship the Beatles and the other can love Dokken, and who's to say who's right. The other school of thought is that over time, an artist's value is, or at least becomes, undeniable. A person doesn't have to like the Beatles, or Dylan, or Al Green, or Louis Armstrong, or Frank Sinatra, or John Ford, or Mark Twain, or Pablo Picasso. But I do, and while it has to do with a lot of things, it ain't because the "media" is telling me so.

I've tried to explain what this band means to me, and have no illusions that I can convince you. But please, I'm 46 years old, I grew up in a house with Beatles music playing, and one thing I'm sure of is that my love of their music has nothing - nothing at all - to do with listening to the media (as though the media speaks with one voice).

 

[L. Anton Dencklau]

...

 

[Stu Rosen]

While I was focusing on the innovation argument, it's only because I was asked why the Beatles were just such darn pioneers. It's not the argument I hang my hat on, personally - that's not why I love them.

As for nostalgia, I suppose that's always a possibility, but I tend to be pretty cold-hearted when it comes to music. When I was 18, it was Springsteen above all, but while I still like the guy, I think over time I've put him in his proper place (granted, at least to me, his last few CDs have made that job a little easier). That's why I love the Beatles so much; I love them in spite of the years, not as a result of them.

You make a good point re: good music being forgotten about, and it's one I don't disagree with, though I don't think it undercuts my argument. I don't know that I agree with your examples (I like Matthew Sweet a lot, but he's such a formalist that what makes his CDs good - his relentless consistency and predictability - is what keeps them from being great. At least to me. (What it it about posting opinions on line that you feel compelled to state the obvious - that it's only your opinion?)

Finally, hey, if you want to discount the Beatles at that record store, it's at your peril! Don't say I didn't warn you. I am NOT liable for the bloody consequences.

 

[Sami Kallio]

1971-1991 is 20 years. Beatles have 9 year head start on the charts.

 

[AnthonyC]

Queen is still "active" officially, although without Freddie, it's Queen only in name.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

They only released albums for 20 years though. That's what's relevant to the weeks-on-the-charts issue.