40 Years of Sgt. Pepper

[SeanDMan]

If Sgt. Pepper and Sgt. Slaughter got in a fight, who do you think would win?

Edited June 3, 2007 by SeanDMan

[GoGo Yubari]

I like rock and roll, and I like maybe two or three Beatles songs. Therefore, the statement isn't true. Most of their stuff has aged horribly, in my opinion, and a lot of it just wasn't very good anyway, not to mention they're responsible for the standardisation of pop music to the guitar-bass-drums-vocals verse-chorus-verse formula. Oh well.

Oh, and the best album is Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's a bit dull, but the title track's a good'un.

This is my point about The Beatles. In their day they did massive things, they were world changing and they're DEFINATELY the most influential band ever, even if just by proxy, but they are not necesarilly a great band like so many seem to state. As Skummy said, they aged horribly and the only real reason people consider them so good still, is because we are all barraged from a young musical age (IE: When we're 'learning the ropes') that The Beatles are important, and far too many people equate important with good, which is rarely ever true in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider different musical tastes.

Isn't this a blanket statement as well? I, personally, almost never listened to The Beatles and was only vaguely aware of their importance but I still incredibly disinterested in their music until my sophomore year in high school, where I decided to borrow some of my friend's Beatles CDs and found myself liking them quite a bit. The fact that I like the Beatles has nothing to do with their significance as far as rock and roll goes (I still don't care for The Who and think that the Rolling Stones were pretty good but a little overrated, for comparison's sake), and I take offense to your implication that that is the only reason why anyone could enjoy them now.

[Benji]

Yeah I guess it was a blanket statement saying it was the only reason, but it's a major factor, and that you can't deny.

[GoGo Yubari]

Yeah I guess it was a blanket statement saying it was the only reason, but it's a major factor, and that you can't deny.

For some people, perhaps, though most people I know who like the Beatles actually seem to legitimately enjoy them and be able to properly discuss their music. But then, I always thought that the common response to music one liked when they were much younger was to go "ugh, I can't believe I thought that was good."

I do agree that it's definitely a common thing with a lot of bands (even as a Velvet Underground fan I can't help but concede that they would probably go on that list as well).

[Benji]

Yeah I guess it was a blanket statement saying it was the only reason, but it's a major factor, and that you can't deny.

For some people, perhaps, though most people I know who like the Beatles actually seem to legitimately enjoy them and be able to properly discuss their music. But then, I always thought that the common response to music one liked when they were much younger was to go "ugh, I can't believe I thought that was good."

I do agree that it's definitely a common thing with a lot of bands (even as a Velvet Underground fan I can't help but concede that they would probably go on that list as well).

Don't get me wrong, I do love several Beatles tracks, but I believe they have aged horribly, it's rare a band doesn't but they have more than most. Most people I meet probably couldn't differentiate one Beatles album from another and yet mark them off as 'the best band ever'.

Edited June 3, 2007 by Benjamin Linus

[Clawson]

Most people I meet probably couldn't differentiate one Beatles album from another and yet mark them off as 'the best band ever'.

[Dingle]

Because usually if you think they are the best band ever you have knowledge of the band and don't just say it so people will be all "THAT GUY KNOWS HIS STUFF!"

[Thatz]

I like rock and roll, and I like maybe two or three Beatles songs. Therefore, the statement isn't true. Most of their stuff has aged horribly, in my opinion, and a lot of it just wasn't very good anyway, not to mention they're responsible for the standardisation of pop music to the guitar-bass-drums-vocals verse-chorus-verse formula. Oh well.

Oh, and the best album is Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's a bit dull, but the title track's a good'un.

This is my point about The Beatles. In their day they did massive things, they were world changing and they're DEFINATELY the most influential band ever, even if just by proxy, but they are not necesarilly a great band like so many seem to state. As Skummy said, they aged horribly and the only real reason people consider them so good still, is because we are all barraged from a young musical age (IE: When we're 'learning the ropes') that The Beatles are important, and far too many people equate important with good, which is rarely ever true in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider different musical tastes.

Edited June 3, 2007 by Thatz

[GoGo Yubari]

Yeah I guess it was a blanket statement saying it was the only reason, but it's a major factor, and that you can't deny.

For some people, perhaps, though most people I know who like the Beatles actually seem to legitimately enjoy them and be able to properly discuss their music. But then, I always thought that the common response to music one liked when they were much younger was to go "ugh, I can't believe I thought that was good."

I do agree that it's definitely a common thing with a lot of bands (even as a Velvet Underground fan I can't help but concede that they would probably go on that list as well).

Don't get me wrong, I do love several Beatles tracks, but I believe they have aged horribly, it's rare a band doesn't but they have more than most. Most people I meet probably couldn't differentiate one Beatles album from another and yet mark them off as 'the best band ever'.

I honestly think that most people couldn't do that for any band, especially not a band that was around for ten years and at one point were releasing like two albums a year (and honestly, early Beatles albums especially sound really, really similar for the most part, with the only one that really felt distinct to me prior to Rubber Soul being A Hard Day's Night, where their formula in the early years was at its tightest and most impressive.

I mean, I will readily admit that I couldn't do that for any Marvin Gaye record other than What's Going On, or any Miles Davis record other than Kind of Blue, Sketches of Spain or The Birth of the Cool, and that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge their talent or how good their music is.

[Matt]

Like GoGo says, there are few artists I could tell you what album a particular song was from, for instance, no-one can deny (though someone will ) that Michael Jackson is one of the greatest pop stars of all time, and I'm a fan of his stuff, but apart from title tracks, I wouldn't be able to tell you what album ANY of his songs were from - I could make educated guesses, but I wouldn't be certain.