Awful article against the beatles.

[xxjoesusxx]

http://www.cm-life.com/2009/09/09/the-beatles-are-overrated-enough-said/

This is an article from my girlfriends college, now, normally I wouldn't get so huffy over somebody not having the same opinon as me, but it's just that this article has absolutely no real counter-argument to beatles fans, it's just some irrelevant rambling from an egotistical, self-absorbed, music-snob who thinks that the backstreet boys were more influential than the beatles.

This actually got published in a college newspaper, and comes off as the most unprofessional, unresearched, and unintelligent articles I have read in a long time.

Like I said, it's not that he dislikes the beatles, it's the way that he went about arguing against them, and how it just made no sense.

Go ahead and read the article, and by all means, comment on it like myself and several others have, this really is a great example of awful, unresearched journalism and this sort of stuff just makes CMLife come off as unprofessional for letting this get published.

[OGGhostguy]

It from freakin Michigan...what did you expect.

[xxjoesusxx]

I'm from Michigan, and I consider myself a pretty intelligent and fair guy, let's not get all stereotypical in here.

[wcarnation]

His article is written like a forum post, jeez.

You know, I don't really "like" the Beatles. But I still have the capability to recognize their function and position in popular circles of media, it just isn't my "thing".

[Dartagnan64]

Well it was just a rambling Blog really.

Anyway, one could argue till the cows came home about the "talent" of the Beatles. Problem is, some people overvalue musicianship and undervalue song-writing. It's alot harder to write a catchy song and add lyrics than it is to learn to play an instrument.
The Beatles were great songwriters and average musicians. That doesn't make them over-rated at all. THe ability to write a song that sticks in peoples heads is far more important than being able to lay down an awesome guitar solo. Our memories are far more tied to lyrics and catchy riffs and that triggers our emotions.
Any band that can have 45 songs on a disc that everyone is familiar with has to be considered one of the greatest bands of all times. Even if some of there earliest tunes were fairly simple, they definitely grew as a band musically and certainly were influential. Hell Nirvana was very influential as well and none of their music was overly skillful. But both the Beatles and Nirvana changed things up and struck a chord with the populace. If you look at what was popular when the Beatles hits were out, their sound was nothing like what everyone else was doing.

[vcalzone]

Well, he got what he was hoping for. Response. This sort of thing is nothing new, though, nor is it unique to him. Every generation has people who try to kill the previous generation's idols. It's what separates the good from the great and the ordinary from the legendary.

But of course, The Beatles have always stood the test of time. Not because people just accept their greatness as fact, because they wrote extremely catchy tunes that each of them were uniquely equipped to enhance in a remarkable way.

When you see an actual musician or student of music criticize The Beatles, pay attention. Because musicians know what it's like to write a song, and I'd like to meet one who never wished he could write songs like Lennon or McCartney. Anyone else is just giving an opinion, and usually an ill-informed one.

I know tastes differ and everything, but there's a difference between saying, "I don't like ham sandwiches" and saying "Ham sandwiches are awful."

[Big0ne]

I'm not a Beatles fan and I think there may be some nuggets of truth buried in there somewhere, however.....


The real crime to that article is that it is full of information that appears to be lifted from this (http://www.virginmedia.com/music/pictures/toptens/beatles-over-rated.php?ssid=1) site which was posted a long time ago.


This is why journalists suck.

[wcarnation]

I know tastes differ and everything, but there's a difference between saying, "I don't like ham sandwiches" and saying "Ham sandwiches are awful."

There's also a different between saying "I like ham sandwiches" and "Ham sandwiches are good as a proven fact", something I think the opposite side of this coin could learn.

I think its goofy how he tries to deride them for the presence of George Martin, going off the notion that if you need the help of someone else, you arn't truly successful. An extension of a young adult's social stigma they place on themselves to remove themselves from any source of help and try to "make it on their own".

Not only does it just not always work the same way like that for everything, it would have indeed placed them in those socially stigmatized basements and drugs, which he puts negatively - yet that would be their fate of "making it on their own" that he celebrates so heavily.

He also seems to believe every person that puts pen to paper and hand to instrument is all on one linear universal sliding scale of objective quality that judges every musician on one sole objective trait, which is about as damn impossible as you can get, not to mention ridiculous.

Supporting these ideas is the idea he projects that he needs the approval of others, through RS' top 100, in order to justify his own opinions. He has difficulty forming independant thought.

[thedoorsdk]

I actually think the Beatles ARE extremely overrated, and I still found this painful to read. The idea that someone actually let this be published in any form is embarrassing for not only the writer, but the paper and the school as well.
I can't believe there are college students with such lackluster argumentative/writing skills.

[Scopitone]

That reads like something you'd find scrawled on a large piece of tree bark in crap. Then, as you're looking around to see where the hell it came from, you see a deranged trash bag diaper wearing hobo running down the street spitting in people's mouths.

You say, "Ooooh!" to yourself, throw down the Beatles R Crap tree bark manifesto and carry on.

[Rockox]

(sigh) Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but this guy just comes across as a total music snob d-bag. Okay, so he's bummed because George Martin doesn't get enough credit? I'm positive hardcore Beatles fans know who George Martin is, so what's his point? What he neglects to mention is that the Beatles just flat-out made damn good songs, and I think that's what fundamentally made them as big as they were.

But it's way easier to just rag on something that's popular, so I can see where this guy would just want to write something like this and think "Oooooo, I can't wait to hear what people say when they read this!!"

[vcalzone]

The Beatles were great songwriters and average musicians. That doesn't make them over-rated at all.
But the crucial part was that they challenged one another and made each other far better than they ever were separately. Think about it. Even while absolutely hating each other and essentially just playing as studio musicians, they made just about every song sound spectacular. That isn't George Martin, you can see it in the videos of rehearsals. They never made the same caliber of music again after The Beatles, and that can't be a coincidence.

[thedoorsdk]

But the crucial part was that they challenged one another and made each other far better than they ever were separately. Think about it. Even while absolutely hating each other and essentially just playing as studio musicians, they made just about every song sound spectacular. That isn't George Martin, you can see it in the videos of rehearsals. They never made the same caliber of music again after The Beatles, and that can't be a coincidence.

All Things Must Pass would beg to differ.

[hmxsean]

I'm from Michigan, and I consider myself a pretty intelligent and fair guy, let's not get all stereotypical in here.

I'm also from Michigan - and that guy who wrote the article is an idiot.

[vcalzone]

All Things Must Pass would beg to differ.
Mmmm... the exception that proves the rule. I like Ram and Plastic Ono Band, too, but there's still something missing on both of those.

[Young Bloodlust]

Wow... That guy is worse than some of the trolls I've seen on these forums because, you know, at least the trolls never say the Backstreet Boys were a revolutionary band.

[oRabbit]

What a tool...just writing that to get attention and to get his column read. What a dou'che. Nobody is saying that George is better than Duane Allman for frick's sake...The Beatles were good because of how they collaborated their talents together to form some of the greatest music of all time.

...and the Backstreet Boys were just a pathetic attempt to mimick the fame of the boy-group era Beatles (early years).

[chrth_rb]

Why would you even read something published in a college newspaper?

[chrth_rb]

All Things Must Pass would beg to differ.

He wrote that while with the Beatles ;)

I know you meant the album, not the song; I was just being silly

[Rockox]

Y'know, I gotta be honest. When I was in highschool, I thought the Beatles sucked too, mostly because I thought they wrote stupid, empty pop songs. It wasn't until I was working at a record store while in university that a co-worker put on Abbey Road in an effort to change my mind. Needless to say, it worked. And once I got over myself, I learned to love the pop tunes too.

Give this kid time. He'll get over himself in about 10 years and start writing about how great the Beatles are.

[cmenear]

Must have gotten the attention he was looking for...the site's currently down! :)

[BigMonkE]

It from freakin Michigan...what did you expect.

a person from LA is saying this. this is not surprising.

my cousins live in michigan, and they are perfectly normal.

[bek_____2]

a person from LA is saying this. this is not surprising.

my cousins live in michigan, and they are perfectly normal.

She/he was probably joking :rolleyes:

[osteofight]

I can't believe an editorial in a college newspaper is just a rant.

[wcarnation]

I can't believe an editorial in a college newspaper is just a rant.

but bro check out his sweet football pics

[Greebo_T_Cat]

http://www.cm-life.com/2009/09/09/the-beatles-are-overrated-enough-said/

This is an article from my girlfriends college, now, normally I wouldn't get so huffy over somebody not having the same opinon as me, but it's just that this article has absolutely no real counter-argument to beatles fans, it's just some irrelevant rambling from an egotistical, self-absorbed, music-snob who thinks that the backstreet boys were more influential than the beatles.

This actually got published in a college newspaper, and comes off as the most unprofessional, unresearched, and unintelligent articles I have read in a long time.

Like I said, it's not that he dislikes the beatles, it's the way that he went about arguing against them, and how it just made no sense.

Go ahead and read the article, and by all means, comment on it like myself and several others have, this really is a great example of awful, unresearched journalism and this sort of stuff just makes CMLife come off as unprofessional for letting this get published.

Wow. It's like someone from the Guitar Hero boards got published. Yeah... i went there...

[Mex]

I've seen better writing on Courtney Love's Twitter.

[thjimmy]

I've seen better writing on Courtney Love's Twitter.

Fail. You follow Courtney Love's twitter. ;)

And thanks to "Joe" who posted this response on the "article":

I posted this on a few message boards, and I think the reply from Sean, a professional musician and developer at Harmonix, put it best.

“This guy is an idiot.”

[xxjoesusxx]

Yeah, I posted that, it made me laugh, and I thought the others reading the article would love it.

[TeamAliceFTW]

This is just a disgrace. Aside from what he says about them, it's horrible journalism. Journalism isn't supposed to be this biased and opinionated. I'm surprised that he's still writing for the newspaper. If I were the editor, he'd be gone.

[Max2323232]

I told myself after I saw that the title had "overrated" in it, I wouldn't read it. But the opening line made me laugh, so I continued reading. I love how his main argument against the band throughout a good portion of the article is the fact that they stopped playing live shows, because apparently not playing live makes you overrated.

[Runesmith]

I'm not even going to click on the link just to spite that journalist.

[DerTommissar]

http://www.cm-life.com/2009/09/09/the-beatles-are-overrated-enough-said/
This actually got published in a college newspaper, and comes off as the most unprofessional, unresearched, and unintelligent articles I have read in a long time.


You're being redundant.

[monkeyfish]

...Did I just read something that was proofread AND approved by an editor? My high school journalist teacher would have laughed at this, then gave the writer an F until he came up with some sources and backup information.

"Teh beatles sck cuz they used georg Martin." What the jist of it is, I believe. The kid's either a contrarian or a teacher's son...

[mazeltomtom19]

...Did I just read something that was proofread AND approved by an editor? My high school journalist teacher would have laughed at this, then gave the writer an F until he came up with some sources and backup information.

"Teh beatles sck cuz they used georg Martin." What the jist of it is, I believe. The kid's either a contrarian or a teacher's son...

Hahaha... any article that starts with a phrase like, "The Beatles suck." should never be published. Ever. Not because of the statement, because he's entitled to his opinion, but because of how unprofessional it is.

[DerTommissar]

They never made the same caliber of music again after The Beatles, and that can't be a coincidence.

Set On You by George Harrison rocks!

[trench762]

when I was real young I hated the beatles as much as the guy who wrote the article probably. But at that time the only beatles I had been exposed to was I wanna hold your hand, eleanor rigby and a few others. Classic rock stations never play the beatles in this area, and none of my friends or family were fans so I had minimal exposure. Then I saw yellow submarine, I was like this is trippy, but still not a fan of the music. It was only within the last 5 years that someone loaned me a copy of revolver and I changed my opinion. The amazing thing about the beatles is that they were so diverse throughout there career, I could easily understand someone not liking them based on a few songs they heard, but it's impossible imo to not like any beatles unless your just really close minded. When I started playing this game, I could hear the influence of alot of my favorite artists. I've found at least 6 beatles songs I really like that I either didn't know they wrote or had never heard before, from the game alone, has definately got me interested in diving deeper into the catalog.

[packerfan8675309]

Most of what he is saying really goes back to the Beatles as people not about their music. Just another article to get a reaction.

[Kazoo]

It's not a journalistic article. It's an opinion piece. It doesn't need to conform to the normal journalistic standards. He's not proving anything. He's not required to stay factual. It's his opinion. It's not the opinion of the publishing vehicle.

You disagree? Good. You're right. It's not well argued. He didn't appear to know his subject very well. He never bothered to appreciate why they were considered so good and have lasted so long.

I'm not a huge fan. I find a lot of their stuff rather boring and simple. But I *do* appreciate the how's and why's of their impact and success.

Still, it's an opinion piece, and he's generally allowed to print what he wants in his own column. That's how it works. Don't blame CM-Life. If they stopped it, they'd be censoring it. And that would be wrong.

[Mex]

It's not a journalistic article. It's an opinion piece. It doesn't need to conform to the normal journalistic standards. He's not proving anything. He's not required to stay factual. It's his opinion. It's not the opinion of the publishing vehicle.

You disagree? Good. You're right. It's not well argued. He didn't appear to know his subject very well. He never bothered to appreciate why they were considered so good and have lasted so long.

I'm not a huge fan. I find a lot of their stuff rather boring and simple. But I *do* appreciate the how's and why's of their impact and success.

Still, it's an opinion piece, and he's generally allowed to print what he wants in his own column. That's how it works. Don't blame CM-Life. If they stopped it, they'd be censoring it. And that would be wrong.

I don't think anyone is saying he CAN'T write this article. We're saying it's a horrible argument that he's making. And that he's an idiot.

Well he may not really be an idiot but he appears to be one by the way he's gone about expressing his opinon.

Also that website has a section for Blogs...if it's just his opinion, then why not just slap it in there.

You say don't blame CM-Life?? Why not? Ultimately the are responsible for what's posted on their site and they approved this....this...crap.

But hey if that's what they consider quality writing, all the power to them.

[.Remix]

I think he's saying this just to be out there and different from people.

In my school we would have so much Beatle hate It would be crazy.
And why? Because It's old and rubbish.

The guy says they were only good because of George Martin, granted he made them become better but If a monkey was with them while making an album It would still be fantastic.

These four men changed the music world, think about It any band or singer will be led back to the beatles, ask him/her who influenced them, they will say, look at who influenced the people they said until it will lead back all the way to The Beatles.

Yeah, there music was simple but that's what made them brilliant, you don't need to put months of effort for one song where you could make them type of songs, Please Please Me was made in a day, and it was brilliant, tell me another band who could make such great music in one day? Not very much ill tell you that.

Yes its his opinion, but when he gives them no rewards for what they have accomplished, then why should we read?

/rant

[HeadHunter67]

The author of that "article" exhibits a complete lack of musical knowledge. He focuses completely on the cultural phenomenon without consideration of the band's exhibition of classic influences, and its evident influences on the bands of today.

George Harrison's guitar playing is classic rock and roll, prototypical electric guitar playing that shows its roots in blues, country and the foundations of rock itself. As songwriters, Lennon/McCartney are the kings of the hill - no one to date has written more hits. So, how can a band that's sold more albums than any other and written more hits than any other be "overrated"?

I think the kid should stick to writing about what he knows - like the imminent arrival of his first pube. He knows less about music than he does about writing.

[Han Daimond]

This actually got published in a college newspaper, and comes off as the most unprofessional, unresearched, and unintelligent articles I have read in a long time.

Those exact 3 words represent the whole article. Mentioned in the comments.

[LinkStrifeLeonhart]

It's not hard to write a catchy song at all! You just make a basic chorus the majority of the song, or repeat one line over and over like the Beatles did (It's easier for the moronic majority to learn the song this way). The reason most bands don't do this, is because they have more integrity and aren't interesting in making catchy pop songs with the same tired formula. They actually, you know, want to add some depth to their music, and not be all fluff. If you think that is more important, well...that doesn't say much for your musical appreciation. The bands that do make lots of catchy music do it because it's an easy way to make money. Sell outs.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. A little help would be appreciated.

[D-Starkiller]

The day I see a band have more than spots 1-6 in the top of the charts (Beatles held spots 1-5 at the same time) then I cant see any way of saying the band is
overrated. Everyone tries to compare with the sounds of todays pop and rock.
Fact is yet simple music they made it and it was a hit. The band had many
Number one hits and even a lot of people think songs that are just as popular
are number ones and they weren't. That just shows that they had something
that most bands since have yet to do. They are great band if your a fan or not
you can't deny what they did.

[Zebracakes]

That artical saying that the Backstreet Boys were revolutionary and the Beatles were not was probably the single most idiotic statement I've heard in a long time. That just angers me...my god...what a dumbass.

[Tracer]

Perhaps I simply missed it as I didn't read all the replies to this thread, but I've seen quite a few college/university newspapers, and rarely are they worth touching.

[Mex]

It's not hard to write a catchy song at all! You just make a basic chorus the majority of the song, or repeat one line over and over like the Beatles did (It's easier for the moronic majority to learn the song this way). The reason most bands don't do this, is because they have more integrity and aren't interesting in making catchy pop songs with the same tired formula. They actually, you know, want to add some depth to their music, and not be all fluff. If you think that is more important, well...that doesn't say much for your musical appreciation. The bands that do make lots of catchy music do it because it's an easy way to make money. Sell outs.


I can't tell if you're being serious or not. A little help would be appreciated.

I can't tell either. If he's being serious he either isn't familiar with the Beatles music and only knows a handful of "hits" OR he's...sorry to say a bit of an idiot.

[bek_____2]

"The Beatles suck.", yes, very professional start. :rolleyes:

But are the Beatles overrated?
Sure, some overrate them (some even claim they invented rock), but then again, some (including mister Stephens) underrate them.

As for the instruments, George's guitar playing is far from perfect in certain songs.

Also, how can he really claim George Martin is not talked about?

Still, he is right to have his own opinion. My opinion is that the Beatles is a great band (one of, or even the best ever). However it all depends on taste (and the Beatles have many styles of music, anyone that have heard all their songs, almost certainly must like at least one(the same goes for most bands/artists really)).

[travmeatwad]

I'm also from Michigan - and that guy who wrote the article is an idiot.

Agreed.

No wonder my friend transferred out of that college.

[vcalzone]

It's not hard to write a catchy song at all! You just make a basic chorus the majority of the song, or repeat one line over and over like the Beatles did (It's easier for the moronic majority to learn the song this way). The reason most bands don't do this, is because they have more integrity and aren't interesting in making catchy pop songs with the same tired formula. They actually, you know, want to add some depth to their music, and not be all fluff. If you think that is more important, well...that doesn't say much for your musical appreciation. The bands that do make lots of catchy music do it because it's an easy way to make money. Sell outs.
That is true... now. Because The Beatles completely conquered that territory and salted the earth behind them in about four years. Believe it or not, buddy, what is cliché today was once an invention of someone else. If The Beatles sound cliché, it's because they've been imitated endlessly.

[vcalzone]

At a certain point, it becomes very difficult to objectively consider a band without knowing the context of history. When you tell someone that The Beatles were responsible for popularizing the concept of an album, that's far too abstract for a person under 40 to understand. Likewise, when you tell someone that Eleanor Rigby changed what a sad popular rock song could be, how can you relate that? Or that they invented the music video?

The problem is not that The Beatles innovated too little, it's that they innovated too much. We're so used to people ripping off or spinning off The Beatles that it becomes hard to comprehend "first". Of course, it wasn't always first, it was often just that when The Beatles decided to rip you off, then they'd already beaten you at your own game. Country? Soul? Classical? Psychedelic? Hard Rock? Blues? Surfer Pop? Sure, throw it all in.

If you had to sum up why The Beatles were great, it would simply be that they did whatever they f***ing wanted to and they pulled it off almost every single time.

[rockfresh126]

Did that article REALLY say that Wilson Pickett's cover of Hey Jude was better than the Beatles????

[DesiredFX]

His article is written like a forum post, jeez.

Bingo.

Never should have been published because it's not even a well-researched opinion piece.

People have a right to their opinions, but if they're going to publish them, they should at least have something more to say than, "that's what I think and everyone else is wrong!"

[Chewie7213]

I'm not a Beatles fan and I think there may be some nuggets of truth buried in there somewhere, however.....


The real crime to that article is that it is full of information that appears to be lifted from this (http://www.virginmedia.com/music/pictures/toptens/beatles-over-rated.php?ssid=1) site which was posted a long time ago.


This is why journalists suck.

Let's hope he gets in trouble for plagiarism, it being a school paper and all and him obviously not having any real interest in journalism. He probably just did this because he was hard pressed to find anything to write about for an assignment.

[vcalzone]

Did that article REALLY say that Wilson Pickett's cover of Hey Jude was better than the Beatles????
I'd never heard that before now. Is there a phrase that means an inverted "rubber soul"? Like taking a simple pop song and turning it into a soul tune that completely removes the spirit of the original?

[DesiredFX]

Let's hope he gets in trouble for plagiarism, it being a school paper and all and him obviously not having any real interest in journalism. He probably just did this because he was hard pressed to find anything to write about for an assignment.

Hilariously, if he did plagiarize that list, he did it without perceiving even a modicum of its ironic tone.

[HeadHunter67]

People have a right to their opinions, but if they're going to publish them, they should at least have something more to say than, "that's what I think and everyone else is wrong!"
I agree that everyone has a right to have an opinion, but there is no inalienable right to express one's opinion - because with that right, comes the responsibility to defend it from scrutiny.

Someone can have the opinion that the world is flat, but we can prove it wrong. So expressing such an opinion is not a right, it is merely stupidity.

[DerTommissar]

Don't blame CM-Life. If they stopped it, they'd be censoring it. And that would be wrong.

No, that would be awesome. CM-Life is not the government; they're some sort of student organization or something, from what I gather. They've got every right to say, "Your article is more or less on. Actually, it's not less on...it's more on. Oh, my bad; it's not your article, you're the one that I want to refer to as moron. This is the worst thing I ever read! Get the hell out of here before I start throwing paperweight snow globes at you."

Not only would they be perfectly within their rights, they'd be doing a public service.

[DerTommissar]

). The reason most bands don't do this, is because they have more integrity and aren't interesting in making catchy pop songs with the same tired formula. They actually, you know, want to add some depth to their music, and not be all fluff. If you think that is more important, well...that doesn't say much for your musical appreciation. The bands that do make lots of catchy music do it because it's an easy way to make money. Sell outs.

Or at least that's what they tell themselves as they cry themselves to sleep at night.

[wcarnation]

A pop band focuses on catchy tunes, a non pop band doesn't. I don't see what is so argument worthy about that, it's different styles, different approaches, different inspirations, different goals, different ideals, and so on. One is only inherently better than the other if it matches up with what you prefer, and it's only better in the sense that you'll enjoy it more.

"Musical Cheesecake" was a phrase I thought described The Beatles very well, and while I might not have a taste for that, I do believe they made their cheesecake well.

[metalhead27]

While I think there's some truth that people mythologize the Beatles too much and there's room to debate how cutting edge or great musicians they are--

that is a horrible column. :mad: She ain't going to convince anyone with those arguments.

[wcarnation]

that is a horrible column. :mad: She ain't going to convince anyone with those arguments.

Isn't much of an argument when there's only one player in the tennis court, it's more like a list of complaints.

[HeadHunter67]

Still, it's an opinion piece, and he's generally allowed to print what he wants in his own column. That's how it works. Don't blame CM-Life. If they stopped it, they'd be censoring it. And that would be wrong.

It's an editor's prerogative to decline to include content if they so choose, especially if it's contrary to the position of the publication. If I were editor, I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but I would merely reject it as poorly written and require, as I do in all discussions, that the author support his so-called opinion with something substantive. Since it's clear that it would be impossible for the author to do so in this case (I mean, how does one equate the "work" of the Backstreet Boys to the musical innovations of the Beatles, who have sold a billion records?), the author would likely eventually give up, and choose instead to write an article pertaining to something he knows - like, for instance, what it means to be the object of ridicule among their journalistic peers.

People are quite entitled not to like the Beatles, or not to understand what it is that makes them legendary to so many. In fact, we're having a very in-depth and informative discussion on that very subject at Doc's forum. But this so-called article is not the way to convince readers of anything, except that the author is an uneducated douche.

[OGGhostguy]

I actually believe the Beatles are quite overrated. Maybe it's just because I didn't grow up during Beatlmania or whatever...I did however buy the game and I have loved the group for most of my life. They made some really great music and I can even appreciate the early stuff for what it is: fluff. But you gotta admit its more like cotton candy. And anyone who out and out says the Beatles "sucked" has some kind of chip on their shoulder, or they're doing it just to be "different".

[Dr.Smoot]

It's not hard to write a catchy song at all!.

Really? Lets hear you do it then.

[fatjab]

Wow. What a terrible article. I feel ashamed as a CMU student to even read that. This is one of the reasons that I don't read our paper very often. Also, never expected to see something from CMU on the Rockband forums. lol.

[bubble-t]

If you did anything other than roll your eyes at that column then you probably haven't read enough discussion and writing about popular music.

If you're going to post about how terrible something is then it should be terrible in some unique way, not just a really boring and predictably ****ty argument you could find in any music forum on the internet.

[Tego1in]

"The Beatles supposedly quit playing live shows because crowds were getting out of control?"

No you idiot.

[nbalive2005]

People who say that all Beatles music are fluff hasnt listened to anything past Help!

[Tono_Fyr]

Really? Lets hear you do it then.

Is that a challenge?

I'll take you up on it if it is. Mostly because I agree that it's insanely easy to write catchy music.

[Unknownsage]

Another person who looks at how easy some songs are to play now and never realized how hard it was in the past.

[ArmsAreLoud]

There are only a few Beatles songs I enjoy (Sgt. Pepper's title track, Helter Skelter, Back in the USSR, and Come Together), and for the last one I prefer the Soundgarden cover (their cover of Helter Skelter is absolutely painful to listen to, though). However, even I can see that this article was poorly written and incredibly stupid.

@Unknownsage: Am I reading your post wrong? It's not like the Beatles did anything that would be easier with two-handed tapping and other shredding nonsense.

[Tono_Fyr]

Another person who looks at how easy some songs are to play now and never realized how hard it was in the past.

We've already established playing and writing as two separate entities. It's easy to write a 1-4-5 chord progression and make it sound good. Throw in some lyrics about how much you love your girl (or miss her, in minor keys) and bam, hit single.

Example: Cherry Pie, that catchy song from the 80s. Took 45 minutes to write. It's catchy, memorable, and a lot of people still like it. Guy who wrote it hates himself for it.

[cengime]

We've already established playing and writing as two separate entities. It's easy to write a 1-4-5 chord progression and make it sound good. Throw in some lyrics about how much you love your girl (or miss her, in minor keys) and bam, hit single.

Example: Cherry Pie, that catchy song from the 80s. Took 45 minutes to write. It's catchy, memorable, and a lot of people still like it. Guy who wrote it hates himself for it.http://jolomo.net/music/william_mann.html

[Daytripped]

I actually think the Beatles ARE extremely overrated, and I still found this painful to read. The idea that someone actually let this be published in any form is embarrassing for not only the writer, but the paper and the school as well.
I can't believe there are college students with such lackluster argumentative/writing skills.

And yet you go on The Beatles Rockband forums....

[brettb3]

We've already established playing and writing as two separate entities. It's easy to write a 1-4-5 chord progression and make it sound good. Throw in some lyrics about how much you love your girl (or miss her, in minor keys) and bam, hit single.

Example: Cherry Pie, that catchy song from the 80s. Took 45 minutes to write. It's catchy, memorable, and a lot of people still like it. Guy who wrote it hates himself for it.

You couldn't be more wrong. The genius of the Beatles is that they made it look simple. It's exceedingly difficult to write a compact, catchy song and make it work.

[monkeyfish]

We've already established playing and writing as two separate entities. It's easy to write a 1-4-5 chord progression and make it sound good. Throw in some lyrics about how much you love your girl (or miss her, in minor keys) and bam, hit single.

Example: Cherry Pie, that catchy song from the 80s. Took 45 minutes to write. It's catchy, memorable, and a lot of people still like it. Guy who wrote it hates himself for it.

Waiting for that hit song of yours. Keep in mind you have to put down the lyrics, the melody, maybe the harmonies, other instruments in the mix (surely you can get a moog in there somewhere), you know, all that easy stuff.

Seriously, if it was so easy, every single pop band would be a billion-seller...

[Dr.Smoot]

Is that a challenge?

I'll take you up on it if it is. Mostly because I agree that it's insanely easy to write catchy music.

Of course, be my guest.

[Dr.Smoot]

We've already established playing and writing as two separate entities. It's easy to write a 1-4-5 chord progression and make it sound good. Throw in some lyrics about how much you love your girl (or miss her, in minor keys) and bam, hit single.

Example: Cherry Pie, that catchy song from the 80s. Took 45 minutes to write. It's catchy, memorable, and a lot of people still like it. Guy who wrote it hates himself for it.

"Cherry Pie" is an awful song. Do you mean you think it's easy to write a lousy song? I wouldn't argue with that.

[Dr.Smoot]

Waiting for that hit song of yours. Keep in mind you have to put down the lyrics, the melody, maybe the harmonies, other instruments in the mix (surely you can get a moog in there somewhere), you know, all that easy stuff.

Seriously, if it was so easy, every single pop band would be a billion-seller...

It's amazing - considering how easy it all is - how the vast majority of bands that actually have any success are extremely lucky if they have more than one or two hits. You would think they would just pop them right out.

[vcalzone]

It really is not that hard to write catchy pop songs if you have an ear for it. History is littered with them.

Case in point 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf-SiTDMl-g
Case in point 2: http://www.last.fm/music/Everclear/+tracks

Go and listen to the top 10 in Everclear's discography. They are all basically the same song with slightly different strum patterns, but nobody seemed to really notice.

[sozozoso]

He's an ignorant putz kid, ignore him.

[Mickey Buns]

If you don't like The Beatles than you don't understand their music, it is very well formed and complex written, this guy doesn't know S**t about music, he is a very closed minded person and grow up corporate controlled bands like the Back Street Boys :eek:

[SgtRubberRevolver]

It should also be noted guitarist Duane Allman of the Allman Brothers Band sat in on the studio session of this song. He also is ranked second on Rolling Stones list of 100 great guitarist of all time. George Harrison is ranked 21st.

This quote made no sense. Really, there's no point. Anyway, this guy is a jerk who has nothing to do than bash a great band that's making a huge comeback. His favorite band is probably The Jonas Brothers

[gamegyro56]

This is the whole article summed up:
"The Beatles suck. So do Britney Spears, T-Pain, American Idol, and The Backstreet Boys. The Who, AC/DC, The Clash, George Martin, Wilson Pickett, Duane Allman, and Jimi Hendrix are the only good bands. All The Beatles were were hypocrites, cowards, and druggies. I don't need evidence, because I speak the truth."

Note: The above quote is absolutely false.

[nbalive2005]

There are only a few Beatles songs I enjoy (Sgt. Pepper's title track, Helter Skelter, Back in the USSR, and Come Together), and for the last one I prefer the Soundgarden cover (their cover of Helter Skelter is absolutely painful to listen to, though). However, even I can see that this article was poorly written and incredibly stupid.

@Unknownsage: Am I reading your post wrong? It's not like the Beatles did anything that would be easier with two-handed tapping and other shredding nonsense.

I didnt quite understand your post but you didnt get what he said so ill try my best to clarify

He probably meant that things that seem standard today, actually had to be experimented by The Beatles in the 60's

[Tono_Fyr]

Laid down the Rhythm guitar already. working on lyrics with the vocal melody. Then I'll program some drums and rig up something with bass (I'm thinking about using my whammy pedal on he octave down setting, or I could just call my bassist...). I'd have it done by this afternoon if I didn't have work. My keyboard is MIA, but I won't be needing it.

Also, I'm a horrid singer (I play guitar, singing is not something I ever plan on doing extensively) but I'll try my best on the vocal track.

Lyrics are mostly done.


Edit: I should also like to note, that yes, Cherry Pie is a lousy song, but it was extremely popular back in the 80s. And that's also the point I'm making. Popular is easy, and quite often lousy.

[DarthAthema]

"The Beatles suck."
Very insightful opening line. What I really love is how you contradict yourself later in the article by saying they made some great music.

"How can a band who stopped playing live shows in 1966 and started making just studio albums be ‘the greatest band ever’?"
Because they basically reinvented recording music and laid the groundwork for how it's done today? Because those studio albums were some of the best ever made and were so influential to nearly every musician that came after them?

"Nothing is more annoying than somebody trying to convince me The Beatles revolutionized music and, without them, we would not have (insert band here).
That argument is weak and false.
I wish this statement was true because, if it was, we wouldn’t have pop sensations Britney Spears, T-Pain or American Idol."
Huh? So if the Beatles had really revolutionized music there wouldn't be other kinds of music? Plus, I'm pretty sure the Beatles probably did inspire whoever writes Britney Spears' songs just like everybody else. I can't speak for T-Pain, but American Idol had a "Beatles Night."

"The Backstreet Boys were revolutionary. But they sucked, too."
They were in no way revolutionary. Other bands had done the exact same thing....including the Beatles. Except they played their instruments and wrote most of their songs.

"And don’t even attempt to sell me on fact The Beatles were about love and world peace.
John Lennon and the rest of the band preached love and tolerance, yet hatred and jealousy among band members tore them apart."
Nobody hated anybody. It was just time for them to go their separate ways. I don't think the way they broke up had nearly as much positive impact as a song like "All You Need is Love."
I mean, sure they wrote some pretty violent songs like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and "Run for Your Life," but for the most part they were positive.

"The Beatles supposedly quit playing live shows because crowds were getting out of control?
Unruly concertgoers never made The Who, The Clash or AC/DC hang up what they did best."
I don't think any of those groups ever had crowds so loud that they couldn't even hear themselves play. That's why they quit. They were frustrated that no one was listening to the music. The Who and AC/DC never had to deal with the "heartthrob" thing.

"But you know what bothers me the most? The fifth Beatle no one talks about.
Wait, there is a fifth Beatle?
Yes, George Martin.
Who’s George Martin?
He is the greatest Beatle (if there is such a thing) and he is to The Beatles what Rick Ruben is to Metallica, The Beastie Boys, Jay-Z, Weezer and every other band he has had his hands on. But you know so much about music, you probably already knew that.
Martin is responsible for the making of every Beatles album except for one. Without him, The Beatles would still be in a basement doing drugs and trying to make albums.
The George Martin Band would have been a better fitting name than The Beatles."
Lots of people talk about George Martin. Hence his nickname, "the fifth Beatle." Producers are very important. This is probably the most coherent part of this post. I would agree that his influence might have been underappreciated, but he didn't write the songs. He might have made the production better, but without the songs and someone to sing them, you've got nothing.

"But someone will still argue George Harrison was the best Beatle because he was an amazing guitarist or Lennon was the best because of his lyrics. The problem is they may be the best Beatles to some, but they aren’t the best at what they did."
Umm...when you say someone is the "best Beatle," you are talking about within the group. This particular Beatle doesn't have to be better then everyone at everything.

"Take, for example, my favorite Beatles song, ‘Hey Jude,’ and compare it to Wilson Pickett’s version. Listen to how much more emotion and energy comes through in the lyrics and guitar."
That would be what we call "subjective."

"It should also be noted guitarist Duane Allman of the Allman Brothers Band sat in on the studio session of this song. He also is ranked second on Rolling Stones list of 100 great guitarist of all time. George Harrison is ranked 21st."
Great.

"Sure, they made some good music, but it was not because they were the best at what they do.
Jimi Hendrix had more talent in his left hand than the Fab Four combined."
See my first paragraph.
Also, do you have to be the best musician in the world to write great music? If this were true, then theoretically only one person (the best musician in the world) would be able to write good music.
Plus, I'm betting Jimi Hendrix would probably pimp slap you if he read your article.

"Apparently none of this matters though. For some reason, people still buy into the hype of Beatlemania."
Yeah, their music has survived more than four decades for no reason whatsoever. Just hype.

Wow, what a dumb article. I know it doesn't even really deserve the response I wrote. I'm just bored. This is the problem with internet culture. It makes it way too easy for people with nothing substantial to say to make their ignorant ramblings available to the whole world. People should really put more thought into their opinions before they broadcast them.

Oh, and "overrated" is becoming one of my least favorite words. It's used a lot on these forums too. Could someone please tell me what it means? Does it mean you think a band is more popular than they deserve to be or that they are considered more talented than they really are? Either way, how can that be proven? It's just an opinion. You might as well just say, "I don't like that band as much as most people seem to." Don't try and make it seem like you're the one that's right and everyone else is just stupid.

[Yer Blues John]

He argues about the Allman brothers being better than the beatles. I can't for the life of me remember any allman brother's songs. I bet a group of 50 couldn't either. That guy is a jerk off. He sucks!

[Mister_Derp]

I remember when I had this exact same opinion about the Beatles.


Then I actually listened to them.

[colahead420]

His argument is weak and false.

I lol'd when he started off with The Beatles suck.

[mason95]

I believe this video best shows my feelings towards this article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAOxY_nHdew

[clashcityrocker10]

Ignoring the opinions this man has, it's just a terribly written article. He didn't connect his thoughts and ideas, and in no way proved "The Beatles suck," to quote the article. Journalism at it's finest, I suppose.

[filcool1234]

Nothing can compare to The Beatles, not even Backstreet Boys :D

[JPIndustrie]

We've already established playing and writing as two separate entities. It's easy to write a 1-4-5 chord progression and make it sound good. Throw in some lyrics about how much you love your girl (or miss her, in minor keys) and bam, hit single.

Example: Cherry Pie, that catchy song from the 80s. Took 45 minutes to write. It's catchy, memorable, and a lot of people still like it. Guy who wrote it hates himself for it.

UM, nah. Try again. :rolleyes:

Please tell me you don't consider yourself a real musician, because you are in WAY over your head with that statement.

[HeadHunter67]

Is that a challenge?

I'll take you up on it if it is. Mostly because I agree that it's insanely easy to write catchy music.
We look forward to hearing your platinum record, then. I mean, it won't be your FIRST #1 hit in the US and the UK, will it? :rolleyes:

Also, I'm a horrid singer (I play guitar, singing is not something I ever plan on doing extensively) but I'll try my best on the vocal track.
In my book, you're already disqualified - because singing was a skill that all the Beatles had. You're like the kids who mock those who play on Medium because they can FC everything on Expert guitar... but they can't sing.


Popular is easy, and quite often lousy.
Popular is measured by airplay and records sold. If you're really right, you've already got some #1 hits under your belt. So why go to all this effort when you can just tell us what you've already done? The obvious answer is: You haven't... because you can't. And whatever crap you put together in an attempt to prove your point will only demonstrate that you still can't. You're incapable of accomplishing even a small fraction of what the Beatles did in their career.

[JPIndustrie]

It really is not that hard to write catchy pop songs if you have an ear for it. History is littered with them.

Case in point 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf-SiTDMl-g
Case in point 2: http://www.last.fm/music/Everclear/+tracks

Go and listen to the top 10 in Everclear's discography. They are all basically the same song with slightly different strum patterns, but nobody seemed to really notice.

Wait, Let me get this straight. You're comparing a mid-1990's footnote alternative band with the Beatles' songwriting.

[JPIndustrie]

Laid down the Rhythm guitar already. working on lyrics with the vocal melody. Then I'll program some drums and rig up something with bass (I'm thinking about using my whammy pedal on he octave down setting, or I could just call my bassist...). I'd have it done by this afternoon if I didn't have work. My keyboard is MIA, but I won't be needing it.

Also, I'm a horrid singer (I play guitar, singing is not something I ever plan on doing extensively) but I'll try my best on the vocal track.

Lyrics are mostly done.


Edit: I should also like to note, that yes, Cherry Pie is a lousy song, but it was extremely popular back in the 80s. And that's also the point I'm making. Popular is easy, and quite often lousy.

OMG. I can't wait for this. Somebody get Clive Davis on the line.

[HeadHunter67]

"But you know what bothers me the most? The fifth Beatle no one talks about.
Wait, there is a fifth Beatle?
Yes, George Martin.
Martin is responsible for the making of every Beatles album except for one. Without him, The Beatles would still be in a basement doing drugs and trying to make albums."
Producers are very important. This is probably the most coherent part of this post. I would agree that his influence might have been underappreciated, but he didn't write the songs. He might have made the production better, but without the songs and someone to sing them, you've got nothing.
The quote only sounds coherent because he got the idea from a book or Wikipedia or something. It's clearly a conclusion he couldn't have arrived upon as his own.

Of course it's worth noting that the Beatles didn't try drugs until they were already wildly successful, so it's not like George Martin had any impact on that either way.

"It should also be noted guitarist Duane Allman of the Allman Brothers Band sat in on the studio session of this song. He also is ranked second on Rolling Stones list of 100 great guitarist of all time. George Harrison is ranked 21st."
Duane Allman IS overrated, unlike George Harrison. Duane wasn't a great guitarist, he merely engaged in musical masturbation. One need only listen to or play Ramblin' Man to see that all he was doing was wanking the frets with the same repetitive notes and chords over and over. It's a good thing Clapton didn't let him do the solos on Layla, because I can only imagine what it would have sounded like. The horror. :eek:

Yeah, the kid who wrote that article has no musical education - he merely hacked together an article from junk he read in magazines and online.

[monkeyfish]

Um, why is this still in the top threads? I believe we're 90% in agreement that the writer is indeed a contrarian moron, for both his uneducated opinion and journalism methods. There's some guy around here pretending he can write pop music, but other than that, why...?

[AceOHearts]

Man, check out the beard on that guy. Judging by that, he'd be up front and center for the Dave Mathews tribute band that just played at my small university.

Either way, the article far over states the importance of George Martin and seems to be hanging on the claim (like everyone else has pointed out) that there is some kind of objective standard for us to rank musicians with. I think we can all agree to one thing and that is whatever the Beatles did, and however they did, it worked. I really can't imagine many other bands that would inspire concern about 'preserving the sanctity of their music'. I personally think the Beatles are amazing, as much as I think Hendrix, Queen, the Grateful Dead, and many other bands are amazing. In the end, there is just something about the Beatles that came from the combination of the four musicians, an exceptionally talented producer (Martin), a recording engineer willing to experiment (Geoff Emerick, who wrote a book I'd recommend to everyone forever), and a cultural atmosphere ripe for accepting the music they produced.

And for the sake of the message board style flaming that article deserves:
...nice neck beard ******.

[cengime]

He argues about the Allman brothers being better than the beatles. I can't for the life of me remember any allman brother's songs. I bet a group of 50 couldn't either. That guy is a jerk off. He sucks!I can, and I'm not going to deny that the Allman Brothers Band is one of the greatest American groups just to disagree with this writer.

[Dr.Smoot]

I can, and I'm not going to deny that the Allman Brothers Band is one of the greatest American groups just to disagree with this writer.

Yes, I love the Allman Brothers.

[Tono_Fyr]

We look forward to hearing your platinum record, then. I mean, it won't be your FIRST #1 hit in the US and the UK, will it? :rolleyes:

In my book, you're already disqualified - because singing was a skill that all the Beatles had. You're like the kids who mock those who play on Medium because they can FC everything on Expert guitar... but they can't sing.


Popular is measured by airplay and records sold. If you're really right, you've already got some #1 hits under your belt. So why go to all this effort when you can just tell us what you've already done? The obvious answer is: You haven't... because you can't. And whatever crap you put together in an attempt to prove your point will only demonstrate that you still can't. You're incapable of accomplishing even a small fraction of what the Beatles did in their career.

I'm not even talking about the Beatles. I'm talking about writing catchy music being easy. I mean, that does include The Beatles in it, but it's a much more general statement. The general thought here is that it's somehow hard or impressive to write catchy music, when it's simply not.

Also, if you're going to bring the game into this, I sing on expert. Matching pitch=/=singing properly.

Edit: Messing around with the bass a bit. Borrowing one from a friend. It's coming out all right. I've got the basic line I want recorded, but it needs just the slightest polishing.

[LinkStrifeLeonhart]

I'm not even talking about the Beatles. I'm talking about writing catchy music being easy. I mean, that does include The Beatles in it, but it's a much more general statement. The general thought here is that it's somehow hard or impressive to write catchy music, when it's simply not.

I, for one, can't wait to see this single become a hit and the record become multi-platinum.

Also all popular music is lousy, eh? Are we talking about songs that are popular or are we talking about the genre of pop? Why can't we leave it at that all lousy music is lousy?

[DrEeviil]

I'm not even talking about the Beatles. I'm talking about writing catchy music being easy. I mean, that does include The Beatles in it, but it's a much more general statement. The general thought here is that it's somehow hard or impressive to write catchy music, when it's simply not.

Also, if you're going to bring the game into this, I sing on expert. Matching pitch=/=singing properly.

Edit: Messing around with the bass a bit. Borrowing one from a friend. It's coming out all right. I've got the basic line I want recorded, but it needs just the slightest polishing.

Dude, seriously. Seek professional help, you are delusional.

[SgtRubberRevolver]

"The Beatles supposedly quit playing live shows because crowds were getting out of control?"

No you idiot.

That's true. The crowd was just too loud for them to hear anything. It's not like they were punching each other, and throwing bottles and other items at The Beatles. That's guy's a grade A moron

[Tono_Fyr]

Dude, seriously. Seek professional help, you are delusional.

What I do in my free time when I'm bored is completely up to me. I've got recording equipment and some musical instruments and some time. I don't see how knowing the basic construction of a pop song (and having the ability to reproduce it) makes me delusional. I've something of a point to prove.

Delusional would be something more along the lines of thinking I had the Equipment when I didn't.

Edit: All that's left is drums. God, I hate singing.

[HeadHunter67]

I'm not even talking about the Beatles. I'm talking about writing catchy music being easy.

If it's as easy for you as it was for the Beatles, then you should have no difficulty writing the music, the lyrics, performing and singing a song that becomes a #1 hit in the US and UK. That's what they did.

Look at all the songs that were written and recorded within the span of a single day. Days after your original claim, you've still given us nothing but empty words.

If you were a songwriter on par with any of them, you'd already be doing it for a living. But you're not - you're a HACK and you are delusional. You are operating under the delusion that this is so easy, even you can do it.

Remember, you're trying to make a catchy pop song, not a crappy one.

[davidshek]

What I do in my free time when I'm bored is completely up to me. I've got recording equipment and some musical instruments and some time. I don't see how knowing the basic construction of a pop song (and having the ability to reproduce it) makes me delusional. I've something of a point to prove.

Delusional would be something more along the lines of thinking I had the Equipment when I didn't.

Edit: All that's left is drums. God, I hate singing.

If what we're talking about here is a catchy rhythm and melody, then who cares about the drums? You could just record vocals and guitar and that should be enough to prove your point, if you can prove your point...which I don't think you can.

As a professional musician myself who plays drums, guitar, and piano, I know exactly how hard it is to write a GOOD song, let alone a catchy one. If it were as easy as you're trying to claim it is, don't you think more people (like...yourself) would have catchy #1 songs that sell thousands/millions of albums? Right...

If all you're going to do is lay down a 12-bar blues progression (1-4-5-1) and sing over it, don't bother. We already know from decades of music history that that "works".

[Tono_Fyr]

If what we're talking about here is a catchy rhythm and melody, then who cares about the drums? You could just record vocals and guitar and that should be enough to prove your point, if you can prove your point...which I don't think you can.

As a professional musician myself who plays drums, guitar, and piano, I know exactly how hard it is to write a GOOD song, let alone a catchy one. If it were as easy as you're trying to claim it is, don't you think more people (like...yourself) would have catchy #1 songs that sell thousands/millions of albums? Right...

If all you're going to do is lay down a 12-bar blues progression (1-4-5-1) and sing over it, don't bother. We already know from decades of music history that that "works".

That's just it, 1-4-5-1 is exactly what I'm talking about. It works for the purposes of a pop song, and most people never do more than that with it. Selling millions of records has more to do with corporate backing than it does with songwriting.

And if you quote me talking about how I'm not refering to The Beatles and immediately mention them, then I'm going to just assume you have no ability to comprehend what you read. I should note, though, that I've heard very few pop songs that were worth hearing a second time, catchy or not.

Seeing as I can't stand the sound of my voice, I'm simply going to post a video on youtube with the music as is, and lyrics off to the side (as I will adamantly refuse to sing, as I sound rather bad, no matter how hard I try).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT48JOjKahk&feature=channel_page
"Enjoy"

[monkeyfish]

That's just it, 1-4-5-1 is exactly what I'm talking about. It works for the purposes of a pop song, and most people never do more than that with it. Selling millions of records has more to do with corporate backing than it does with songwriting.

And if you quote me talking about how I'm not refering to The Beatles and immediately mention them, then I'm going to just assume you have no ability to comprehend what you read. I should note, though, that I've heard very few pop songs that were worth hearing a second time, catchy or not.

Seeing as I can't stand the sound of my voice, I'm simply going to post a video on youtube with the music as is, and lyrics off to the side (as I will adamantly refuse to sing, as I sound rather bad, no matter how hard I try).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT48JOjKahk&feature=channel_page
"Enjoy"

You wrote a poem and then did some strumming on the guitar, then didn't even bother trying to get the two mixed. You barely, under the most technical of rules, wrote a pop song. But you give no melody to the words, no accents or differentiating vocals. No harmonies, drums, maybe I'm just not hearing a bass, just what sounds like one guitar.

[davidshek]

And if you quote me talking about how I'm not refering to The Beatles and immediately mention them, then I'm going to just assume you have no ability to comprehend what you read. I should note, though, that I've heard very few pop songs that were worth hearing a second time, catchy or not.

I never quoted you referring to the Beatles, nor did I mention them. Go spew your hate at somebody else.


Seeing as I can't stand the sound of my voice, I'm simply going to post a video on youtube with the music as is, and lyrics off to the side (as I will adamantly refuse to sing, as I sound rather bad, no matter how hard I try).

Congratulations, you wrote a totally generic guitar and bass line. But without vocals, it's not anywhere close to "catchy". Providing a text printout of the lyrics is useless, since we have no idea what kind of vocal melody line you have in your head. You could have at least played a 2nd guitar line that was mimicking the vocal melody so we could hear it.

The challenge here was not to just write A song. The challenge was to write a "catchy" song. And you didn't.

Also, do us all a favor and tune your guitar before recording next time, eh?

[Tobias3]

http://www.cm-life.com/2009/09/09/the-beatles-are-overrated-enough-said/

This is an article from my girlfriends college, now, normally I wouldn't get so huffy over somebody not having the same opinon as me, but it's just that this article has absolutely no real counter-argument to beatles fans, it's just some irrelevant rambling from an egotistical, self-absorbed, music-snob who thinks that the backstreet boys were more influential than the beatles.

This actually got published in a college newspaper, and comes off as the most unprofessional, unresearched, and unintelligent articles I have read in a long time.

Like I said, it's not that he dislikes the beatles, it's the way that he went about arguing against them, and how it just made no sense.

Go ahead and read the article, and by all means, comment on it like myself and several others have, this really is a great example of awful, unresearched journalism and this sort of stuff just makes CMLife come off as unprofessional for letting this get published.


There is a decent amount of truth in the articles. The Beatles were the first big music fad, and that has stuck with them over the years. The hype remains because the older generation keeps telling us how great they were. Imagine if 40 years from now, adults were telling legends about the great Jonas Brothers and how amazing they were.

Personally, I think Queen is on par with the Beatles as far as musical talent, famous hit songs, and innovation. Maybe even better, because all 4 artists were masters of many many instruments.

[Mex]

There is a decent amount of truth in the articles. The Beatles were the first big music fad, and that has stuck with them over the years. The hype remains because the older generation keeps telling us how great they were. Imagine if 40 years from now, adults were telling legends about the great Jonas Brothers and how amazing they were.

Personally, I think Queen is on par with the Beatles as far as musical talent, famous hit songs, and innovation. Maybe even better, because all 4 artists were masters of many many instruments.

We aren't talking about Queen though, it has nothing to do with this "writer's" "article".

And the Jonas Bros. no matter how popular can't hold a candle to the Beatles in terms of talent.

That's the difference, The Beatles had the appeal AND the talent. Since then there have been many "fad" bands that had the appeal but nowhere near the talent.

[brettb3]

There is a decent amount of truth in the articles. The Beatles were the first big music fad, and that has stuck with them over the years. The hype remains because the older generation keeps telling us how great they were. Imagine if 40 years from now, adults were telling legends about the great Jonas Brothers and how amazing they were.

Personally, I think Queen is on par with the Beatles as far as musical talent, famous hit songs, and innovation. Maybe even better, because all 4 artists were masters of many many instruments.

When you last over 40 years, it is far more than hype. The songs have to hold up.

[SisterRay]

I'm not even talking about the Beatles. I'm talking about writing catchy music being easy. I mean, that does include The Beatles in it, but it's a much more general statement. The general thought here is that it's somehow hard or impressive to write catchy music, when it's simply not.

Also, if you're going to bring the game into this, I sing on expert. Matching pitch=/=singing properly.

Edit: Messing around with the bass a bit. Borrowing one from a friend. It's coming out all right. I've got the basic line I want recorded, but it needs just the slightest polishing.

The Beatles broke some major ground in pop and rock music for example "Blue Jay Way". I appreciate the fact that George Harrison wrote a pop tune with a verse that's based on the diminished (half step/whole step) scale and a chorus based on the lydian mode. That's pretty darn exotic within the realm of pop music! Then there is "Strawberry Fields Forever" takes extreme liberties with the 'pop' single, creating an absolutely extraordinary, spooky masterpiece.

Then there is Brian Eno commenting the Beatles were creating not merely rock records but lushly conceptual aural landscapes or atmospheres. I think he must of meant songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "A Day in the Life". Then the Beatles are the only pop/rock act that can a number one song in a 7/4 time signature. Saving the best for last this is what Bob Dylan said about the early Beatles.

Bob Dylan

"They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid. They were pointing the direction music had to go."

Enough said. :D

[mercury11]

I agree with one thing they are overrated. (certainly there are at least 50 better rock artists) Terribly written article though.

[Mex]

I agree with one thing they are overrated. (certainly there are at least 50 better rock artists) Terribly written article though.

At least 50? I think you may be exaggerating. I know it's opinion but I'm just curious if you'd like to list them?

[mercury11]

At least 50? I think you may be exaggerating. I know it's opinion but I'm just curious if you'd like to list them?

Yeah I will.. and more then 50 actually it's not an exaggeration
edit: actually never mind it's pointless.

[SisterRay]

I agree with one thing they are overrated. (certainly there are at least 50 better rock artists) Terribly written article though.

Please the Beatles are most covered songwriters in the last half century and did this in seven years. The Beatles came out with Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, and Magical Mystery Tour in two years. They were not voted by their peers as the greatest rock artists in history for nothing. The one thing you can whether are they more pop than rock that is it. Compare the Beatles to their greatest rival The Rolling Stones

Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, a groundbreaking album. It mostly seems like a slightly superior incarnation of The Rolling Stones’ Their Satanic Majesties Request, a record that (ironically) came out seven months after this one. Pop archivists might be intrigued by this strange parallel between the Beatles and the Stones catalogue—it often seems as if every interesting thing The Rolling Stones ever did was directly preceded by something the Beatles had already accomplished, and it almost feels like the Stones completely stopped evolving once the Beatles broke up in 1970. But this, of course, is simply a coincidence. I mean, what kind of bozo would compare the Beatles to The Rolling Stones

[mercury11]

Please the Beatles are most covered songwriters in the last half century and did this in seven years. The Beatles came out with Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, and Magical Mystery Tour in two years. They were not voted by their peers as the greatest rock artists in history for nothing. The one thing you can whether are they more pop than rock that is it.

what?

[OldFogey]

Problem is, some people overvalue musicianship and undervalue song-writing.

This.

And it's not just catchy tunes -- it's great song structure, great lyrics, and great arrangements as well. George Martin certainly had a hand in the arrangements, but from what I've heard it was usually more a matter of turning Paul or George's ideas into something a studio musician could execute, not creating arrangements from whole cloth. (Still I think you really have to admire someone like Brian Wilson who really did the John/Paul/George M. thing all wrapped up in one package.)

But I would quibble over the choice of the word "musicianship." musicianship means more than instrumental prowess. And what most folks get overwhelmed with as "talent" is really "who has the best chops". I frequently find an overemphasis on manual dexterity and reaction times interferes with real musicianship.

Moreover, the Beatles were also great singers, especially harmonizers. Real singing, esp. harmony singing is great musicianship.

One more thing -- Paul was really good on bass, the one part of the Beatle's instrumental capability that really holds up. Although I will say that Ringo contributes some extremely tasty playing -- not just Charlie Watt's tight in the groove but basic stuff, but some rather creative little choices.

[mercury11]

Please the Beatles are most covered songwriters in the last half century and did this in seven years. The Beatles came out with Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, and Magical Mystery Tour in two years. They were not voted by their peers as the greatest rock artists in history for nothing. The one thing you can whether are they more pop than rock that is it. Compare the Beatles to their greatest rival The Rolling Stones

Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, a groundbreaking album. It mostly seems like a slightly superior incarnation of The Rolling Stones’ Their Satanic Majesties Request, a record that (ironically) came out seven months after this one. Pop archivists might be intrigued by this strange parallel between the Beatles and the Stones catalogue—it often seems as if every interesting thing The Rolling Stones ever did was directly preceded by something the Beatles had already accomplished, and it almost feels like the Stones completely stopped evolving once the Beatles broke up in 1970. But this, of course, is simply a coincidence. I mean, what kind of bozo would compare the Beatles to The Rolling Stones

it seems to me the least interesting things they did were when they followed The Beatles...

[SisterRay]

what?

Compare the Beatles to their greatest rival The Rolling Stones

Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, a groundbreaking album. It mostly seems like a slightly superior incarnation of The Rolling Stones’ Their Satanic Majesties Request, a record that (ironically) came out seven months after this one. Pop archivists might be intrigued by this strange parallel between the Beatles and the Stones catalogue—it often seems as if every interesting thing The Rolling Stones ever did was directly preceded by something the Beatles had already accomplished, and it almost feels like the Stones completely stopped evolving once the Beatles broke up in 1970. But this, of course, is simply a coincidence. I mean, what kind of bozo would compare the Beatles to The Rolling Stones.

Here is just the top of the Rolling Stone Immortal List as voted by a panel of musicians and music producers.:o

1) The Beatles

2) Bob Dylan

3) Elvis Presley

4) The Rolling Stones

5) Chuck Berry

[mercury11]

Compare the Beatles to their greatest rival The Rolling Stones

Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, a groundbreaking album. It mostly seems like a slightly superior incarnation of The Rolling Stones’ Their Satanic Majesties Request, a record that (ironically) came out seven months after this one. Pop archivists might be intrigued by this strange parallel between the Beatles and the Stones catalogue—it often seems as if every interesting thing The Rolling Stones ever did was directly preceded by something the Beatles had already accomplished, and it almost feels like the Stones completely stopped evolving once the Beatles broke up in 1970. But this, of course, is simply a coincidence. I mean, what kind of bozo would compare the Beatles to The Rolling Stones.

Here is just the top of the Rolling Stone Immortal List as voted by a panel of musicians and music producers.:o

1) The Beatles

2) Bob Dylan

3) Elvis Presley

4) The Rolling Stones

5) Chuck Berry

wow shocking top 5.. and by Rolling Stones magazine such a reliable source

[SisterRay]

This.

And it's not just catchy tunes -- it's great song structure, great lyrics, and great arrangements as well. George Martin certainly had a hand in the arrangements, but from what I've heard it was usually more a matter of turning Paul or George's ideas into something a studio musician could execute, not creating arrangements from whole cloth. (Still I think you really have to admire someone like Brian Wilson who really did the John/Paul/George M. thing all wrapped up in one package.)

But I would quibble over the choice of the word "musicianship." musicianship means more than instrumental prowess. And what most folks get overwhelmed with as "talent" is really "who has the best chops". I frequently find an overemphasis on manual dexterity and reaction times interferes with real musicianship.

Moreover, the Beatles were also great singers, especially harmonizers. Real singing, esp. harmony singing is great musicianship.

One more thing -- Paul was really good on bass, the one part of the Beatle's instrumental capability that really holds up. Although I will say that Ringo contributes some extremely tasty playing -- not just Charlie Watt's tight in the groove but basic stuff, but some rather creative little choices.

It's really about songwriting someone like Roger McGuinn changed from being a folkie to a rocker because of the Beatles chord progressions and their beat. Like I said if anyone thinks were 1-4-5 band they are sadly mistaken for example "Think For Yourself" is mixing major and minor modes in the same song and I have mentioned "Blue Jay Way" which is a pop tune with a verse that's based on the diminished (half step/whole step) scale and a chorus based on the lydian mode. Both were pretty darn exotic within the realm of pop music!:confused:

[Tonyt]

The only things the Beatles and the Stones have in common is they are both English bands and they are both bigger in the US than they are here in the UK:cool:

[mercury11]

It's really about songwriting someone like Roger McGuinn changed from being a folkie to a rocker because of the Beatles chord progressions and their beat. Like I said if anyone thinks were 1-4-5 band they are sadly mistaken for example "Think For Yourself" is mixing major and minor modes in the same song and I have mentioned "Blue Jay Way" which is a pop tune with a verse that's based on the diminished (half step/whole step) scale and a chorus based on the lydian mode. Both were pretty darn exotic within the realm of pop music!:confused:

The Beatles combined already existing scales with some fun pop tunes big deal.
and in the realm of pop music it may be "exotic"

[SisterRay]

The Beatles combined already existing scales with some fun pop tunes big deal.
and in the realm of pop music it may be "exotic"

It certainly not 1-4-5 chord progressions that is common in rock and roll. It was they used it also. All You Need is Love might be poorly regarded to some; I love that song. The way the chord progression on the chorus works around to the cadence is sneaky and beautiful, the way it works with the melody. Plus how many rockers were using a 7/4 time signature? Not many

Their early chord progressions were enough for Bob Dylan and Roger McGuinn to comment on how different they were at the time in rock and roll. I know it's hard for some people who are tired of the Beatles and I understand but give credit where it's due. :D

[mercury11]

It certainly not 1-4-5 chord progressions that is common in rock and roll. It was they used it also. All You Need is Love might be poorly regarded to some; I love that song. The way the chord progression on the chorus works around to the cadence is sneaky and beautiful, the way it works with the melody. Plus how many rockers were using a 7/4 time signature? Not many

Their early chord progressions were enough for Bob Dylan and Roger McGuinn to comment on how different they were at the time in rock and roll. I know it's hard for some people who are tired of the Beatles and I understand but give credit where it's due. :D

if you want to base the significance of an artist on how different their material is you might as well
consider Captain Beefheart the greatest of all time and I might just agree with you

[SisterRay]

if you want to base the significance of an artist on how different their material is you might as well consider Captain Beefheart the greatest of all time

The thing is his music is tuneless to many people. The Beatles could combine dissonance with sparkling melodies like "Strawberry Fields Forever". As for pop artists you are not going to find anything more different than tracks like "Inner Light" and "Revolution #9". Here are three of my favorite Beatles songs. I would take these songs any day over Captain Beefheart and I could care less if he was more complex. It's about songwriting to many of us and Captain Beefheart is not someone who I would waste more than one spin with.

"A Day in the Life": A trippy John Lennon song and a peppy Paul McCartney song and linked together with 90 seconds of cacophonous sonic netting. Perhaps the first industrial bridge in a song.

"Tomorrow Never Knows" A surreal sounding soundscape created by loops, Indian drones, and backward tape. Listen to the solo section not only has a backward guitar solo but the instrumental section is basically looped sounds.

"Penny Lane" a great sounding pop song harmonically very interesting and the end it ends with feedback from a piano

[mercury11]

The thing is his music is tuneless to many people. The Beatles could combine dissonance with sparkling melodies like "Strawberry Fields Forever". As for pop artists you are not going to find anything more different than tracks like "Inner Light" and "Revolution #9". Here are three of my favorite Beatles songs. I would take these songs any day over Captain Beefheart and I could care less if he was more complex. It's about songwriting to many of us and Captain Beefheart is not someone who I would waste more than one spin with.

"A Day in the Life": A trippy John Lennon song and a peppy Paul McCartney song and linked together with 90 seconds of cacophonous sonic netting. Perhaps the first industrial bridge in a song.

"Tomorrow Never Knows" A surreal sounding soundscape created by loops, Indian drones, and backward tape. Listen to the solo section not only has a backward guitar solo but the instrumental section is basically looped sounds.

"Penny Lane" a great sounding pop song harmonically very interesting and the end it ends with feedback from a piano

Cool story and here's another one. Captain Beefheart takes some getting used to at first, just like Ornette and Ayler and the Velvets and even the Stooges (and didn't Dylan sound pretty strange the first time we heard him?). But if it does sometimes require some patience and close attention, is also one of the most rewarding musical experiences available today. The fact is that this man's music, probably more than that of anybody else working in rock now, is breaking ground for an awesome superhighway leading us away from the decadent era of Superstars into a future where every man shall have ears to hear music beyond our wildest dreams, music like nobody's heard on earth before. [ . . . ] So I'm gonna go not so very far at all out on a limb and say that Captain Beefheart is the most important musician to rise in the Sixties, far more significant and far-reaching than the Beatles, who only made pretty collages with material from the public domain, when you get right down to it; as important, as I said, for all music as Ornette Coleman was for jazz ten years ago and Charlie Parker 15 years before that, as important as Leadbelly was for the blues Cap teethed on. His music is a harbinger of tomorrow, but his messages are universal and warm as the hearth of the America we once dreamed of. That's a combination that's hard to beat."Lester Bangs"

and well at least this man http://www.beefheart.com/datharp/albums/official/pics/lennonsam.jpg likes Beefheart. and I agree with the song choices some of my favorites as well.

[veng]

This is going into "HoR" territory. Want to start a comparison thread? Do it there.