Fleetwood Mac is just so good!

[CADreaming]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

To be fair Roger Miller wasn't the only artist before The Beatles who wrote and performed his own music! There were plenty of other performers out there who wrote their own songs, particularly in the world of blues and country. But much of popular music was controlled by record companies who dictated what their artists would sing. Tin Pan Alley and the like dominated the music industry before they came along. The Beatles, along with Dylan, without a doubt paved the way for the singer/songwriter. I'm sure Stevie and Lindsey would acknowledge this.

Hank Williams, Sr. comes to mind. He was a superstar in the late '40's and early '50's. His songs were covered by pop artists of the day, due to his success.

[chiliD]

Ok, just a survey...how many of you Beatle-bashers were even born when the Beatles were still together? How many of you were even born before John Lennon was shot?

I think THAT has a helluva lot to do with "Beatle perception".

For those of us were (as Sting wrote) "born in the 50s", the Beatles are not just musicians/songwriters/singers/performers, they're ****ing GODS. Don't mess with 'em. May John Lennon's ghost piss in your drink and George Harrison's give you a painful wedgie.

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by chiliD

Ok, just a survey...how many of you Beatle-bashers were even born when the Beatles were still together? How many of you were even born before John Lennon was shot?

I think THAT has a helluva lot to do with "Beatle perception".

For those of us were (as Sting wrote) "born in the 50s", the Beatles are not just musicians/songwriters/singers/performers, they're ****ing GODS. Don't mess with 'em. May John Lennon's ghost piss in your drink and George Harrison's give you a painful wedgie.

I get the feeling that John Lennon, were he here, would be too nice a chap to do such a thing, what with this peace promotion and all... unless you forgot about his peaceful revolution antics? And I don't think John Lennon would like to be called a god, even if he consider the band "bigger than Jesus" - just listen to the lyrics of "Imagine"! (Those lyrics are gold! Lennon, eat your heart out! )
Perhaps I should buy that stereo box set that came out recently and have a listen (trust me when I say that I'd absolutely love it!) before I make any more comments against The Beatles creativity. I've only listened to a few compilations of The Beatles, and I should know by now that compilations usually don't do justice to a band's work.
Anyway, I'll now defend my comment that creativity is a better selection criteria...
Why is it that music (and usually books) is usually judged in how good it is by how popular it is? Think of Susan Boyle - one of the more talented modern days singers, like Dido, Norah Jones, and Michael Buble. The ads for her album are promoting it as the worldwide #1 album. Now imagine if the ad made no mention of her success, instead just advertising her songs... I'm extremely confident that significantly fewer people would buy it.
I'll quote Richard Dawkins now, as he has a habit of being able to say things people think in the most eloquent fashion possible:
"Whereas other genres of art criticism betray some preoccupation with style or skill of performence, with mood, emotional impact, with the qualities and properties of the art-form, the 'pop' music sub-culture is almost exclusively preoccupied with popularity itself. It is quite clear that the important thing about a record is not what it sounds like, but how many people are buying it. The whole sub-culture is obsessed with a rank ordering of records, called the Top 20 or Top 40, which is based only upon sales figures."
The Blind Watchmaker, pg. 219
And he goes on about it a bit more. It was an analogy for sexual selection, if you were curious. (I'm not sure how popular The Blind Watchmaker is, but make no mistake when I say that it's the best book on an explanation of evolutionary biology for laymen (like myself) I've read!)
Actually, I don't think I need to say any more, because Dawkins said it all!
And, back on topic once more, FM is just so good!

[jaycee]

I know I'm getting seriously off topic now, but I just need to post these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv3ic6OOXns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU
If I had to choose between The Beatles and John Lennon (although I'm glad I don't have to! ), John Lennon would be chosen in a heartbeat!
Now, to stay on topic, FMijsg!

[blondyy-x]

[QUOTE=trackaghost;864688]To be fair Roger Miller wasn't the only artist before The Beatles who wrote and performed his own music!QUOTE]

I just used Roger Miller as an example since i was listening to him as i wrote it

Y'know, yeah i wasn't born when The Beatles were around. Or when John Lennon got shot. I'm a 90's child. I wasn't born when any of my favourite artists formed - Blondie, Heart, Janis Joplin, Led Zeppelin, Fleetwood Mac, Ramones.. etc etc. But i still know how they influenced music. It's not fair to say that just because i wasn't born then that i have no idea of how they shaped music.
I'm not a Beatle-basher, they're just not my everything. If The Beatles hadn't have done it, then someone else would've.

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by blondyy-x

If The Beatles hadn't have done it, then someone else would've.

Well you could say that about Fleetwood Mac or any band really.

Originally Posted by blondyy-x

It's not fair to say that just because i wasn't born then that i have no idea of how they shaped music.

Yes, but you (and I for that matter) don't understand in the same way as someone who saw it all happening. I remember the great late DJ John Peel saying that younger people today don't understand how important Elvis was: the music world and youth culture changed completely when he came along. The change, he said, was striking, he literally changed everything almost overnight. Now you could argue that someone else would have done it if Elvis hadn't but that doesn't make him any less important.

[luckydimecaper]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Well you could say that about Fleetwood Mac or any band really.



Yes, but you (and I for that matter) don't understand in the same way as someone who saw it all happening. I remember the great late DJ John Peel saying that younger people today don't understand how important Elvis was: the music world and youth culture changed completely when he came along. The change, he said, was striking, he literally changed everything almost overnight. Now you could argue that someone else would have done it if Elvis hadn't but that doesn't make him any less important.

Exactly, I think the fact here is that Elvis and the Beatles were those people. It might have been someone else if it hadn't have been them, and we'd be having the same argument. But it just happened that it WAS them.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by luckydimecaper

Exactly, I think the fact here is that Elvis and the Beatles were those people. It might have been someone else if it hadn't have been them, and we'd be having the same argument. But it just happened that it WAS them.

Yes. Their influence is undeniable. I'm just not one of the people who consider them sacrosanct and immune from any real criticism (not saying you are)

[Fleetwoodmark]

Pretty sad folks who think any type of musician could be branded a "God".

Ludicrous.

The Beatles were a band that wrote and produced mediocre pop rock songs, Get a life and get over it. The idea that any band/musician is immune to critiscism is insane.

[luckydimecaper]

Originally Posted by Fleetwoodmark

Pretty sad folks who think any type of musician could be branded a "God".

Ludicrous.

The Beatles were a band that wrote and produced mediocre pop rock songs, Get a life and get over it. The idea that any band/musician is immune to critiscism is insane.

Was this aimed at me?

I agree with you btw.

Apart from the "mediocre pop songs" bit

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by LukeA

Yes. Their influence is undeniable. I'm just not one of the people who consider them sacrosanct and immune from any real criticism (not saying you are)

I agree completely. I've never been a huge fan of The Beatles but those denying the impact they made or the influence they had obviously have no real knowledge or understanding of music.
I'm still waiting though for someone to explain to me how Fleetwood Mac were musically more creative than The Beatles.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

I agree completely. I've never been a huge fan of The Beatles but those denying the impact they made or the influence they had obviously have no real knowledge or understanding of music.
I'm still waiting though for someone to explain to me how Fleetwood Mac were musically more creative than The Beatles.

Oh, it's the same mindset as "FM can't/won't open for the Eagles". They let their fandom get in the way of the FACTS.
Rose colored glasses...

[Fleetwoodmark]

Originally Posted by luckydimecaper

Was this aimed at me?

I agree with you btw.

Apart from the "mediocre pop songs" bit

Was aimed at no one in particular. I just had to reply to the bizarre idea that The Beatles are the be all and end all of pop rock music as if no one else had any contributing factor to the way this genre was shaped.

For what it's worth I have a degree from Edinburgh in Music & History so I know my fair share of the background surrounding most genres of music and their evolution.

The fact that some folks on here are Beatles mad and as a result are blinded from the facts about the argument.

I don't want to fall out with anyone over this but it's almost as if people have been brainwashed to the point that if you critiscise The Beatles you are branded a blasphemist.

[trackaghost]

Where does anyone say that no one else contributed to popular music and it the way it evolved? I don't believe anyone said that, just that The Beatles were one of the most important acts in terms of influence etc. To deny that is as bad as those who can't bear for them to criticised imo.
And I say this as something who doesn't even like The Beatles much.

[luckydimecaper]

Originally Posted by Fleetwoodmark

Was aimed at no one in particular. I just had to reply to the bizarre idea that The Beatles are the be all and end all of pop rock music as if no one else had any contributing factor to the way this genre was shaped.

For what it's worth I have a degree from Edinburgh in Music & History so I know my fair share of the background surrounding most genres of music and their evolution.

The fact that some folks on here are Beatles mad and as a result are blinded from the facts about the argument.

I don't want to fall out with anyone over this but it's almost as if people have been brainwashed to the point that if you critiscise The Beatles you are branded a blasphemist.

Well, I personally didn't say that they were the be all and end all! I was just replying to someone who made the bizarre comment "FM pisses all over the Beatles creatively". But there's a difference between criticising them because you don't personally like them and then just plain disregarding their importance. Just as some people might be brainwashed into worshipping the Beatles, I think there are a lot of people out there who don't like them just because they're so popular and so highly regarded. (I'm not implying that's your viewpoint).

Anyway, I guess everyone will have to agree to disagree