Ritterskoop wrote:Having always had the Beatles in the world, it's hard for me to get my head around there being a time before them.
We don't like to talk about those days
Seriously , though, it always ticks me off when someone..pretty much invariably someone born after or slightly before 1964...says something along the lines of "Oh, the Beatles are soooo overrated. They weren't as influential as people think, blahblahblah". First off, if someone doesn't like them, that's one thing. Everyone has their own tastes and that's cool. They certainly are free to like what they like, although I admit I usually have to repress my impulse to defend the honor of my beloved lads.
BUT...
When someone says they didn't have as much impact on music as they're given credit for (I know that doesn't reflect your opinion), it shows me that:
1-They simply weren't alive, or old enough yet, to experience firsthand the unprecedented dominance they were wielding on music and pop culture, fashion, even lifestyles. Most everyone for awhile was taking their cues from them.
2-They are unable to place the group's output in the context of what else was on the charts at the time they hit. Aside from Brian Wilson's growing compositional sophistication, Phil Spector's studio wizardry, and the groundbreaking sounds coming out of the Motown studio, what else came even close to the "kicking open the door" sound of "I Want To Hold Your Hand"? It was the sound of boundaries of musical possibilities being broken. The rest of the charts were dominated by teen idols and "safe", simple and largely forgettable, fluff. To me, there's no more perfect example of the drastic shift in the musical wind than to note what was number one the week before "Hand". In just ONE WEEK, we went from Bobby Vinton's "There! I've Said It Again" to "I Want To Hold Your Hand"!!! If you can, listen to those songs back to back. That's no subtle shift, that's going directly from riding a tricycle to piloting a jet. When these folks say stuff like "oh, those songs are so simple, how can you say it was so creative and revolutionary..it can't compare to Pink Floyd, etc.", they usually aren't thinking in terms of what else was going on AT THE TIME. Of course, "Dark Side of the Moon" is more sophisticated than "She Loves You"..but "Moon" came 10 years or so later. And let us not forget the rapid maturation evident with each new Beatles record. In 1962 they recorded "Love Me Do". Just 5 years later they released "Sgt. Pepper". That's mind-boggling.
3-Not relevant? Influence exaggerated? Please. The Beatles' DNA is in, in varying degrees, most every pop and rock band that came after them, just as Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, etc. were in theirs. It's inescapable. Most artists list the group as a favorite, an influence, or both.
As usual, this was meant to be a short comment but since the subject is Beatles, I got carried away. I guess it would've been easier to just say that to know the FULL story on their impact and legacy, you needed to experience it firsthand. It's like, I can well imagine what it must've been like during World War II but I can never COMPLETELY understand the fear and worry that accompanied that time...I didn't LIVE in those times. Don't mean to equate WW II with pop music, but you get my point.
4- Finally, when someone downplays the importance of The Beatles, it shows me that either they're trying to deliberately stir up a little controversy, or that they pretty much don't know crap about music. They can hate 'em all they want, but not important? That's ignorance.
