12 Extremely Disappointing Facts About Popular Music

[ketamine]

I don't get all the comparisons to the Beatles? They're just a pop band from the sixties. They're weren't particulary inovative, they just went with what was popular at the time, which is exactly what pop artists do today. The only reason the only reason the artists the article draws comparisons to have sold more music is because it's so cheap and easy to buy nowadays.

This. F*ck the Beatles.

[davwuh]

Who cares

[JTMMusicuk]

Without the beatles we wouldnt have dubstep, true story bro

[aspect-dubz]

Alot of the people in the list that "should have got more recognition" are or were rich as fuck anyway.

[Forum]

Wonder if in 20 years people will look back on Justin Bieber the same way we remember Michael Jackson and Prince

[clifford_-]

Without the beatles we wouldnt have dubstep, true story bro

this.

you never watched any documentarys?!
they changed the game. BIG TIME.

[Forum]

Without the beatles we wouldnt have dubstep, true story bro

this.

you never watched any documentarys?!
they changed the game. BIG TIME.

Only because they were the first to do it. When i listen to their music now i really dont hear anything special. I can understand it from he point of view of someone that was around at the time but i really dont get these people in their 20s who bang on about how great the Beatles were.

Also Paul Mccartney is a mug

[clifford_-]

Wings

[test_recordings]

Without the beatles we wouldnt have dubstep, true story bro

this.

you never watched any documentarys?!
they changed the game. BIG TIME.

Only because they were the first to do it. When i listen to their music now i really dont hear anything special. I can understand it from he point of view of someone that was around at the time but i really dont get these people in their 20s who bang on about how great the Beatles were.

Also Paul Mccartney is a mug

But if they didn't do it who would have? They were good at what they did, they did some pretty novel stuff and fuck loads of people liked it = famous

It's like saying the first people to do anything don't deserve any credit for it, like walking on the moon or sailing across the pacific

You don't hear anything special because they've been ripped off so much since the '60s!

[Pedro Sánchez]

Without the beatles we wouldnt have dubstep, true story bro

this.

you never watched any documentarys?!
they changed the game. BIG TIME.

Only because they were the first to do it.

Not even that, taking an already thriving scene, watering it down and exploiting the fuck out of it to white audiences. Sound familiar?
Their later work, due to advances in technology might of been ahead of it's time but only because of the access to big studios, that the pioneers of that sound didn't have.

[Genevieve]

Yeah, without the Beatles music wouldn't be the way it is today and the point of this list is to show how much modern music sucks. So what's so great about their influence? All 'influence' does is say how many musicians like them and people are notorious for having a crappy taste in anything. Not saying that the Beatles were necessarily crap (well, I don't like them but it's a different story), but it's just such a moot point that doesn't say shit about the music itself. Just some dumb thing people say to justify their opinions because it's not enough to 'simply like stuff', no, you've got to convince the rest of the world that your opinion is 'objectively true' and use 'influence' as a way of convincing other people that they're wrong.

Just some bullshit about ego.

Besides, The Beatles were most influential in being a multi-media phenomenon than a band, which can only be credited to the way they were marketed.

And the music press was extremely obnoxious about them. Because the Beatles 'wrote all of their own songs', the rock press saw it as a perquisite that every performer writes their own music. It kinda created the modern racist attitudes people have about rock music. If you look at most of the American blues based music tradition, which has its roots in African folk traditions, you had great singers and great songwriters working together to make great music. Some songwriter could sing well, some singers could write decent tunes but it wasn't frowned upon when a great songwriter gave a song to a better singer to create the best possible piece of music.

When the great white Beatles hit the scene, the white music press declared that every musician after them had to work according to their ethics and that anything less than that wasn't 'real music'. Music became so much more about the musician and the ego than the beautiful sound itself because of that. That's why the Beatlemania was such a revolutionary thing. I mean, people worshiped musicians before, but Beatlemania made the 'concept' of the Beatles more important than the music itself, so the 'concept' of the Beatles was sold to the masses, the music, the film, were really only the 'vessels' for it.

So now you have assholes like the one who made that list bitching about pop musicians. The same pop-musicians who are actually just working in the same tradition as Motown did back in the days. You can't really blame the Beatles for it, but it's definitely a way they've influenced the modern day music industry. It basically turned your average white music fan into an elitist tnuc.

And to me each and every musician on that list, including the ones that are supposedly the 'good' ones are fucking terrible.

[JTMMusicuk]

Yeah, without the Beatles music wouldn't be the way it is today and the point of this list is to show how much modern music sucks. So what's so great about their influence? All 'influence' does is say how many musicians like them and people are notorious for having a crappy taste in anything. Not saying that the Beatles were necessarily crap (well, I don't like them but it's a different story), but it's just such a moot point that doesn't say shit about the music itself. Just some dumb thing people say to justify their opinions because it's not enough to 'simply like stuff', no, you've got to convince the rest of the world that your opinion is 'objectively true' and use 'influence' as a way of convincing other people that they're wrong.

Just some bullshit about ego.

Besides, The Beatles were most influential in being a multi-media phenomenon than a band, which can only be credited to the way they were marketed.

And the music press was extremely obnoxious about them. Because the Beatles 'wrote all of their own songs', the rock press saw it as a perquisite that every performer writes their own music. It kinda created the modern racist attitudes people have about rock music. If you look at most of the American blues based music tradition, which has its roots in African folk traditions, you had great singers and great songwriters working together to make great music. Some songwriter could sing well, some singers could write decent tunes but it wasn't frowned upon when a great songwriter gave a song to a better singer to create the best possible piece of music.

When the great white Beatles hit the scene, the white music press declared that every musician after them had to work according to their ethics and that anything less than that wasn't 'real music'. Music became so much more about the musician and the ego than the beautiful sound itself because of that. That's why the Beatlemania was such a revolutionary thing. I mean, people worshiped musicians before, but Beatlemania made the 'concept' of the Beatles more important than the music itself, so the 'concept' of the Beatles was sold to the masses, the music, the film, were really only the 'vessels' for it.

So now you have assholes like the one who made that list bitching about pop musicians. The same pop-musicians who are actually just working in the same tradition as Motown did back in the days. You can't really blame the Beatles for it, but it's definitely a way they've influenced the modern day music industry. It basically turned your average white music fan into an elitist tnuc.

And to me each and every musician on that list, including the ones that are supposedly the 'good' ones are fucking terrible.

it wasnt really the marketting that made them big now was it, i believe its something called hard work and inovation

[Genevieve]

Yeah, without the Beatles music wouldn't be the way it is today and the point of this list is to show how much modern music sucks. So what's so great about their influence? All 'influence' does is say how many musicians like them and people are notorious for having a crappy taste in anything. Not saying that the Beatles were necessarily crap (well, I don't like them but it's a different story), but it's just such a moot point that doesn't say shit about the music itself. Just some dumb thing people say to justify their opinions because it's not enough to 'simply like stuff', no, you've got to convince the rest of the world that your opinion is 'objectively true' and use 'influence' as a way of convincing other people that they're wrong.

Just some bullshit about ego.

Besides, The Beatles were most influential in being a multi-media phenomenon than a band, which can only be credited to the way they were marketed.

And the music press was extremely obnoxious about them. Because the Beatles 'wrote all of their own songs', the rock press saw it as a perquisite that every performer writes their own music. It kinda created the modern racist attitudes people have about rock music. If you look at most of the American blues based music tradition, which has its roots in African folk traditions, you had great singers and great songwriters working together to make great music. Some songwriter could sing well, some singers could write decent tunes but it wasn't frowned upon when a great songwriter gave a song to a better singer to create the best possible piece of music.

When the great white Beatles hit the scene, the white music press declared that every musician after them had to work according to their ethics and that anything less than that wasn't 'real music'. Music became so much more about the musician and the ego than the beautiful sound itself because of that. That's why the Beatlemania was such a revolutionary thing. I mean, people worshiped musicians before, but Beatlemania made the 'concept' of the Beatles more important than the music itself, so the 'concept' of the Beatles was sold to the masses, the music, the film, were really only the 'vessels' for it.

So now you have assholes like the one who made that list bitching about pop musicians. The same pop-musicians who are actually just working in the same tradition as Motown did back in the days. You can't really blame the Beatles for it, but it's definitely a way they've influenced the modern day music industry. It basically turned your average white music fan into an elitist tnuc.

And to me each and every musician on that list, including the ones that are supposedly the 'good' ones are fucking terrible.

it wasnt really the marketting that made them big now was it, i believe its something called hard work and inovation

If that was the case than we'd be worshiping the Velvet Underground instead of the Beatles. People don't give a crap about innovation, they didn't in 1964 and they don't now. They want to hum along and tap their feet (and there's nothing wrong with that).

Where's Godspeed You! Black Emperor winning Grammies? Or hell, Horsepower Productions instead of Skrillex? Or even in the '60s/'70s. No one remembers AMM or Cromagnon or Amon Düül or DJ Kool Herc?

I'm not saying that 'innovative music' can't be successful, just look at Kraftwerk, but they wrote pop tunes so they got successful.

The Beatles were as innovative as Radiohead are; taking what's 'hot' in underground music of their time and glossing it over and selling it to a large audience. It's not even an insult, I like a couple of Radiohead records. But even if they were innovative, it's not the reason they're popular.

[clifford_-]

has anybody here actually watched any beatles/early 60s music documentary's?!

[JTMMusicuk]

The reason people are favoring people like skrillex and the beatles etc. is because the music appeals to more people, its about taste, not everyone has the same taste as you pop music is called popmusic because suprise suprise its popular.
Looking back at the beatles music it doesnt seem like they have done much to earn their status but thats because for years and years after we're still ripping off theyre chord and song structures and theyve become boring but imagine what it was like back then.

[mVI]

has anybody here actually watched any beatles/early 60s music documentary's?!

You mean those ones where they try to convince everyone that the Beatles actually existed? Nice try.

[Genevieve]

[quote="JTMMusicuk"]The reason people are favoring people like skrillex and the beatles etc. is because the music appeals to more people, its about taste, not everyone has the same taste as you pop music is called popmusic because suprise suprise its popular.

You're saying the exact same thing I said. When did I say or imply that everyone should listen to the Velvet Underground or that they should have my taste, did you not read me saying the complete opposite? I don't give a shit what music is popular. This is about why the Beatles are popular and it's because they're accessible (thanks for repeating what I said), it's got nothing to do with innovation because people standing in a club don't listen to a tune and think to themselves 'oh wow, this is innovative', they think 'I can shake my ass to it and I can hum along to the melody'.

To think that the Beatles are the one band that became huge for being innovative while the others aren't just reeks of fanboyism.

[clifford_-]

The reason people are favoring people like skrillex and the beatles etc. is because the music appeals to more people, its about taste, not everyone has the same taste as you pop music is called popmusic because suprise suprise its popular.

You're saying the exact same thing I said. When did I say or imply that everyone should listen to the Velvet Underground or that they should have my taste, did you not read me saying the complete opposite? I don't give a shit what music is popular. This is about why the Beatles are popular and it's because they're accessible (thanks for repeating what I said), it's got nothing to do with innovation because people standing in a club don't listen to a tune and think to themselves 'oh wow, this is innovative', they think 'I can shake my ass to it and I can hum along to the melody'.

To think that the Beatles are the one band that became huge for being innovative while the others aren't just reeks of fanboyism.

Not the one. The First.

[herbalicious]

Lennon was a genius who wrote game changing songs. McCartney is a plonker who wrote songs about birds.

[Neptune]

we used to sing this song in primary school!