LogFAQs > #959171579

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Jagger and McCartney feuding about who was better Stones or Beatles
ParanoidObsessive 10/18/21 9:31:43 PM #21:	DirtBasedSoap posted... big brain PO calling the Beatles derivative is hilarious They were popularizers, not innovators. They derived their sound from their influences just like most other bands. They were generally fairly open about where their influences came from - it was really only their fans that treated them more like transcendent musical geniuses than as a band standing on the shoulders of others (like most bands are). While there were certainly elements of their sound that felt more original (especially later in their career), it was mostly because they were finding new influences and finding ways to synthesize the sounds and styles together. And they were popular enough to become an influence on countless bands that followed them, but in that, they weren't that different from countless performers that came before them. If anything, the real key to their success might simply be the fact that they came of age at a time when mass-media made distribution and access possible on such a major scale. The world had far more access to their music than it did countless black musicians performing in run-down clubs. Elvis kind of benefited from the same advantage (and he was one of the strong influences on the Beatles early on as well). In other words, they're not all that different from the Rolling Stones. Which is why that sort of criticism kind of rings hollow - he's literally pointing out something he's essentially equally guilty of. Which just kind of feels like starting to buy into your own hype later in life. Maybe Paul's forgotten the reality of his past in favor of the legend. But honestly, the Beatles will always be seen as being qualitatively different because they self-destructed at the height of their success rather than slowing withering and fading away like so many other performers and groups. It's the same reason why the "27 Club" holds such fascination for a lot of people, why we tend to revere dead martyrs more than living people. It's easier to worship a memory than a person. It's easier to judge someone based on only their successes and not their later failures (just ask George Lucas about Star Wars). --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:959171579] in Jagger and... [t:79714878]...</cite> <quote><cite>DirtBasedSoap posted...</cite> <quote>big brain PO calling the Beatles derivative is hilarious </quote> They were popularizers, not innovators. They derived their sound from their influences just like most other bands. They were generally fairly open about where their influences came from - it was really only their fans that treated them more like transcendent musical geniuses than as a band standing on the shoulders of others (like most bands are). While there were certainly elements of their sound that felt more original (especially later in their career), it was mostly because they were finding new influences and finding ways to synthesize the sounds and styles together. And they were popular enough to become an influence on countless bands that followed them, but in that, they weren't that different from countless performers that came before them. If anything, the real key to their success might simply be the fact that they came of age at a time when mass-media made distribution and access possible on such a major scale. The world had far more access to their music than it did countless black musicians performing in run-down clubs. Elvis kind of benefited from the same advantage (and he was one of the strong influences on the Beatles early on as well). In other words, they're not all that different from the Rolling Stones. Which is why that sort of criticism kind of rings hollow - he's literally pointing out something he's essentially equally guilty of. Which just kind of feels like starting to buy into your own hype later in life. Maybe Paul's forgotten the reality of his past in favor of the legend. But honestly, the Beatles will always be seen as being qualitatively different because they self-destructed at the height of their success rather than slowing withering and fading away like so many other performers and groups. It's the same reason why the "27 Club" holds such fascination for a lot of people, why we tend to revere dead martyrs more than living people. It's easier to worship a memory than a person. It's easier to judge someone based on only their successes and not their later failures (just ask George Lucas about Star Wars). --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1