Caio:
> << So tell me: besides their "sociological importance", what good qualities
> do you see in the Beatles that makes them deserve being listened to by people
> who despise those artists I mentioned above? I've been asking Beatlemaniacs
> that question for years but I've never gotten a rational answer. >>
Christine:
>
> I think some of their melodies are exquisite. "Yesterday" is one example.
You see, that's a matter of preference. I think that's boring!
> Yes, they started out as a boy band but they evolved. > Their use of
> instrumentation, which you can attribute to George Martin, introduced a new
> element into pop music.
Who's George Martin? The 5th invisible Beatle? It's not your merit if your
producer does something for you that you can't by yourself. Does Metallica
deserve the merit of the orchestration on that double cd of theirs? I doubt they
can tell an oboe from xylophone!
>George Harrison's introduction of the sitar to pop
> music (even though Ravi Shankar told him he played it terribly on "Norwegian
> Wood") brought in non-Western instrumentation.
When was that?
> "A day in the life" was
> orchestral - a bit overblown, but that was the point of the song, I think.
OK, but have you ever listened to rock bands such as Angra, Helloween, Virgo or
Rhapsody?? They have orchestral arrangements everywhere, with the difference
that they know what they're doing, they themselves compose, arrange and some of
then even conduct the orchestra and the result is much more impressive and
musically rich than you can get from Harrison or any of the Beatles. So, if
personal preference is to be considered, the Beatles aren't any better ( or
worse )than Metallica or Beethoven ( what confirms that "What, you don't like
the Beatles?" as nonsensical ) , and if musicianship is the point, then they're
lost, as non-classical musicians have done much better things than they have...
but without 1/10 of the media.
> Their lyrics (post-"Love me do") are also quite good. Norwegian Wood,
> Eleanor Rigby, Yesterday, A Day in the Life. I was talking about music, but
you must admit they're not the only good pop lyricists around. I think that's
where pop music beats opera easily, by the way.
> I like Mozart, I like the Beatles, I like Madonna ("Like a prayer" is a great
> pop song"). I hope that this is a rational answer - ...
Mmm... not really! hehe I was not saying people shouldn't like the Beatles, or
have reason to like them. I was asking why people ARE SUPPOSED to like them and
why, let's say, Rhapsody or Angra do not deserve the same glorification if they
have those elements you cited on a much more regular basis.
You see, you like them...and Mozart ( who, you probably agree, has more reasons
to be liked than they do ) and Madonna. If you were to rate them MUSICALLY I
assume you'd put Mozart at the VERY top, but if someone says they don't like
Mozart they're much less likely to hear "What, you don't like Mozart??". But
isn't that an absurd???
>Again, why should anyone have to rationalize or justify why
> he/she likes a particular artist?
I AGREE WITH YOU. But most people who like the Beatles generally want YOU to
justify why you don't share their NON-rational taste ( and I don't believe taste
is something rational either ). So I just echo their question, sometimes get
answers similar to yours, make those considerations I've just made and 9 out of
10 times I hear this final conclusion: "But YOU can't impose YOUR taste on
others!". I wonder if that's not a sign that you'll really hear demonic msgs if
you play Sargent Peppers backward! hehe Now, isn't that a zombie-like behavior,
like that of a Reverend Moon's disciple?
But now imagine your 12-year-old niece ( supposing you have one! hehe ) saying:
"What, you don't like Backstreet Boys?". SHE PROBABLY WOULDN'T , but something
in the mind of most people who like the Beatles makes them think it's IMpossible
not to like them!
That's strange!
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
|  |
