It's an interesting question. I think they're not unlike Elvis. The music was mediocre to good, but the cultural significance can't be measured. The Beatles, like Elvis, were cultural icons. They represented much of what the counter-cultural revolution of the time was looking for. Overt sexiness, anti-conformity (though is pretty moderate ways), and racial acceptance (through performing music that was largely considered part of the black culture at the time). These things were as important, if not more so than the music.
The staying power of the Beatles music gives me pause, however. Lots of bands are still doing things to emulate them (for example, check out the latest album by Maps & Atlases, a fringe band who has a serious Beatles quote in the opening song of their newest album). I think their creativity, and acceptance of foreign musical formats makes their music more relevant than other icons from their era.
I do think, however, we're unable to separate the cultural significance of the Beatles from their relevance in the musical community. I believe their music is over rated.
From a musical standpoint, I don't think you can call them overrated. Most historians agree that they were the first "modern" band; the originators of modern music, if you will. The production of their early albums was something that was considered revolutionary at the time, and although it was quickly emulated by the likes of The Rolling Stones, The Who and many others, most will agree that The Beatles were the first to bring that sort of sound to the table. I've heard people say that pretty much anything you listen to can be traced back to The Beatles.
I like a few of their songs, but overall I'm not a fan. I also find it annoying how so many kids praise The Beatles just to be smart/cool, but I don't let that cloud my judgment on the subject.
I think you'll find that the Beatles actually emulate bands from that era. They weren't as original as people believe them to be, they were simply more willing than most to incorporate elements from black music, from foreign music, and make it into something recognizable than most.
And, to be honest, they really were the first "boy band." They helped forge that format of band in the music industry.
:dunno:
It's an interesting question. I think they're not unlike Elvis. The music was mediocre to good, but the cultural significance can't be measured. The Beatles, like Elvis, were cultural icons. They represented much of what the counter-cultural revolution of the time was looking for. Overt sexiness, anti-conformity (though is pretty moderate ways), and racial acceptance (through performing music that was largely considered part of the black culture at the time). These things were as important, if not more so than the music.
The staying power of the Beatles music gives me pause, however. Lots of bands are still doing things to emulate them (for example, check out the latest album by Maps & Atlases, a fringe band who has a serious Beatles quote in the opening song of their newest album). I think their creativity, and acceptance of foreign musical formats makes their music more relevant than other icons from their era.
I do think, however, we're unable to separate the cultural significance of the Beatles from their relevance in the musical community. I believe their music is over rated.
Why doesn't anyone see that this is just another one of alexpnz attempts at winning people over to his favorite Beatle wannabe band, Oasis? :stir: