"The Beatles Aren't Good" Paradox.

Everything stands on the shoulders of what came before.

This is why its sometimes difficult to get children to appreciate old/classic works.
It takes a certain level of maturity to say "okay I see how this was a big deal at the time especially if it was the first to do this thing, even though I've seen this thing taken to the next level (or three) since then"
 
Everything stands on the shoulders of what came before.

This is why its sometimes difficult to get children to appreciate old/classic works.
It takes a certain level of maturity to say "okay I see how this was a big deal at the time especially if it was the first to do this thing, even though I've seen this thing taken to the next level (or three) since then"
Sums up perfectly
 
I never really understood the Beatles until I saw that documentary Get Back (and the original it took from, Let It Be). I still don't like most of their music, although at this point in my life I can admit some of that is built on the prejudice I had back in the 90's when it always felt like the Boomers were shoving it down my throat (and who were so quick to dismiss modern music). They had a great look in the 60's, and it was utterly fascinating watching them put an album together. They deserve the accolades they have.
There's a pretty good movie about a guy who gets hit by a car and when he wakes up he finds himself in an alternate timeline where the only difference is that the Beatles never formed a band and their music never existed.

So he takes it upon himself to sing their songs and share their music to the world. He becomes massively famous, but all the music executives want to try and alter the music into soulless modern pop and he refuses and ends up sharing all the songs online for free.

He also meets some other people from his timeline that were people who knew of the Beatles and got sent there too. He even gets to meet an older still living John Lennon since he had never been famous and got assassinated. I kinda forgot how it ended tho.

The name of it was Yesterday. I don't really care much for the Beatles, but even I can admit it was a pretty decent movie. Probably has a lot more impact on Beatles fans tho
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say they aren't good. They got a lot of good shit. I think it's just the passing of time, and change in culture. The Beatles were a force of nature back when they were making music, but now, their music is pretty average in terms of musical technique and such.

I don't like a lot of The Beatles stuff truthfully, but nobody is gonna tell me Come Together is a bad song, that shit fucks.
 
Mode 7, which was so revolutionary for simulating 3D perspective using sprites, nowadays looks like a flat rug spinning in various directions lol.
Post automatically merged:

There's a pretty good movie about a guy who gets hit by a car and when he wakes up he finds himself in an alternate timeline where the only difference is that the Beatles never formed a band and their music never existed.
The only thing I remember about this movie is lawsuit filed by Ana de Armas fans, who felt "misled" by her absence from production after seeing the actress in first trailer :loldog
1784682444822.png
 
Last edited:
Mode 7, which was so revolutionary for simulating 3D perspective using sprites, nowadays looks like a flat rug spinning in various directions lol.
Post automatically merged:


The only thing I remember about this movie is lawsuit filed by Ana de Armas fans, who felt "misled" by her absence from production after seeing the actress in first trailer :loldog
View attachment 214037
I don't really see a lawsuit over being bummed out that an actress you liked not appearing in the final production holding up in court lol but that's pretty crazy
 
I don't really see a lawsuit over being bummed out that an actress you liked not appearing in the final production holding up in court lol but that's pretty crazy
You're right. What's even crazier is finding out that these guys filed the lawsuit 5 YEARS after release (and asked for 5 MILLION in compensation).
 
Last edited:
it's an age thing too - if we were there when they first appeared they would probably have a similar effect on us in the way "Nirvana" did.

I wasn't there for Nirvana's heyday either, but I recognised the spark of genius in both bands. Sometimes, in this disenchanted world, magic still happens. It's not naive to gather around that fire and recognise it as inimitable.
 
The misapprehension that the Beatles have somehow been subsumed in what came after stems from a linear conception of musical history.

When you suppose music has been progressing, you treat the earlier works as merely foundational. Preferring those older works is either nostalgia or historical curiosity at best. Any stubbornness in this regard might betray a perverse or reactionary disposition.

But when you place the Beatles in their proper context, considering what came before as well as what came after, you begin to see a clearer picture. Compare them to traditional folk ballads, consider John Dowland and Purcell, along with many others in the English musical lineage. You will find that the Beatles didn't simply build on what came before, they actually cleared much of it away.

The essence of music is not complexity or virtuosity, the genius (or spirit) resides in the "songness" of the song. All music was merely spoken in the distant past, it evolved first from poetry, which was accompanied by light instrumentation. Read a poem of Sappho and tell me if it seems rudimentary or primitive, you'll only be ousting yourself as a philistine.

Now, the Beatles are not Sappho, we don't pretend that. But they achieved a rare and luminous feat, they managed to cut through ornamentation and strike the quintessence of song. And they achieved this by doing less rather than more.

Some bands since then have achieved similar feats, Nirvana was a notable example. People often complained that their musicality was limited, or that they were "over-hyped". But Nirvana succeeded in bypassing our aesthetic and rational minds, and stirred something much deeper and much older.

Those girls screaming at Beatles concerts were having religious experiences, and I'm not speaking hyperbolically here.
Rock and Roll was not just a genre of music, it was a Dionysian frenzy that shook the world. A veritable Saint Vitus Dance that we'll never see again in our lifetimes. We might want to downplay it because it occurred for our parents and grandparents, rather than for us, but all who lived just after historic periods felt the same "surely it wasn't that special".

But it was, don't resent it, it was. And really it's a miracle, recording technology was good enough to capture their magic, while the industry was naive enough not to interfere artistically. The Beatles are a prime example of kairos, divine timing. Something interceded on behalf of mankind in that moment, who are we to downplay the magnitude of that gift?
 
if i could revive john lennon i'd do it just to shoot him again
What?
Post automatically merged:

When you suppose music has been progressing, you treat the earlier works as merely foundational. Preferring those older works is either nostalgia or historical curiosity at best. Any stubbornness in this regard might betray a perverse or reactionary disposition.
I don't feel like it evolved that much nor necessarily became better.

I really can't see how people that like classical music from centuries ago could be nostalgic of that era.


The essence of music is not complexity or virtuosity, the genius (or spirit) resides in the "songness" of the song.
I still think that complexity and virtuosity helps a lot to make them timeless. That's why we are still talking about composers from eons ago.
 
I really can't see how people that like classical music from centuries ago could be nostalgic of that era.
I'm in agreement with you here, I was summing up other people's misconceptions in that paragraph.
I still think that complexity and virtuosity helps a lot to make them timeless.
It isn't the complexity, it's something that survives the complexity. And that surviving is testament to its deep simplicity.
 
The misapprehension that the Beatles have somehow been subsumed in what came after stems from a linear conception of musical history.

When you suppose music has been progressing, you treat the earlier works as merely foundational. Preferring those older works is either nostalgia or historical curiosity at best. Any stubbornness in this regard might betray a perverse or reactionary disposition.

But when you place the Beatles in their proper context, considering what came before as well as what came after, you begin to see a clearer picture. Compare them to traditional folk ballads, consider John Dowland and Purcell, along with many others in the English musical lineage. You will find that the Beatles didn't simply build on what came before, they actually cleared much of it away.

The essence of music is not complexity or virtuosity, the genius (or spirit) resides in the "songness" of the song. All music was merely spoken in the distant past, it evolved first from poetry, which was accompanied by light instrumentation. Read a poem of Sappho and tell me if it seems rudimentary or primitive, you'll only be ousting yourself as a philistine.

Now, the Beatles are not Sappho, we don't pretend that. But they achieved a rare and luminous feat, they managed to cut through ornamentation and strike the quintessence of song. And they achieved this by doing less rather than more.

Some bands since then have achieved similar feats, Nirvana was a notable example. People often complained that their musicality was limited, or that they were "over-hyped". But Nirvana succeeded in bypassing our aesthetic and rational minds, and stirred something much deeper and much older.

Those girls screaming at Beatles concerts were having religious experiences, and I'm not speaking hyperbolically here.
Rock and Roll was not just a genre of music, it was a Dionysian frenzy that shook the world. A veritable Saint Vitus Dance that we'll never see again in our lifetimes. We might want to downplay it because it occurred for our parents and grandparents, rather than for us, but all who lived just after historic periods felt the same "surely it wasn't that special".

But it was, don't resent it, it was. And really it's a miracle, recording technology was good enough to capture their magic, while the industry was naive enough not to interfere artistically. The Beatles are a prime example of kairos, divine timing. Something interceded on behalf of mankind in that moment, who are we to downplay the magnitude of that gift?
I think what made me like the Beatles was having no context whatsoever about them (I didn't know they were rock, that they were famous, and much less that they were old), so I shed my preconceptions and simply listened because it was good.
1784717065678.jpeg

My father only had the 1 album in home, and I listened to it because I had nothing better to do 🤭
 
I think what made me like the Beatles was having no context whatsoever about them (I didn't know they were rock, that they were famous, and much less that they were old), so I shed my preconceptions and simply listened because it was good.
View attachment 214140
My father only had the 1 album in home, and I listened to it because I had nothing better to do 🤭
I discovered them in much the same way. My father had a few records, but he much preferred Creedence Clearwater Revival and Pink Floyd. I picked out the Beatles from his collection because I thought they were a children's band, like the Wiggles or something.
 
I think at the time music had finally turned into an industry ready to sell a global product and The Beatles were talented enough to be that product. And apparently they are responsible for the state of today's music😅
 
The misapprehension that the Beatles have somehow been subsumed in what came after stems from a linear conception of musical history.

When you suppose music has been progressing, you treat the earlier works as merely foundational. Preferring those older works is either nostalgia or historical curiosity at best. Any stubbornness in this regard might betray a perverse or reactionary disposition.

But when you place the Beatles in their proper context, considering what came before as well as what came after, you begin to see a clearer picture. Compare them to traditional folk ballads, consider John Dowland and Purcell, along with many others in the English musical lineage. You will find that the Beatles didn't simply build on what came before, they actually cleared much of it away.

The essence of music is not complexity or virtuosity, the genius (or spirit) resides in the "songness" of the song. All music was merely spoken in the distant past, it evolved first from poetry, which was accompanied by light instrumentation. Read a poem of Sappho and tell me if it seems rudimentary or primitive, you'll only be ousting yourself as a philistine.

Now, the Beatles are not Sappho, we don't pretend that. But they achieved a rare and luminous feat, they managed to cut through ornamentation and strike the quintessence of song. And they achieved this by doing less rather than more.

Some bands since then have achieved similar feats, Nirvana was a notable example. People often complained that their musicality was limited, or that they were "over-hyped". But Nirvana succeeded in bypassing our aesthetic and rational minds, and stirred something much deeper and much older.

Those girls screaming at Beatles concerts were having religious experiences, and I'm not speaking hyperbolically here.
Rock and Roll was not just a genre of music, it was a Dionysian frenzy that shook the world. A veritable Saint Vitus Dance that we'll never see again in our lifetimes. We might want to downplay it because it occurred for our parents and grandparents, rather than for us, but all who lived just after historic periods felt the same "surely it wasn't that special".

But it was, don't resent it, it was. And really it's a miracle, recording technology was good enough to capture their magic, while the industry was naive enough not to interfere artistically. The Beatles are a prime example of kairos, divine timing. Something interceded on behalf of mankind in that moment, who are we to downplay the magnitude of that gift?
I don't disagree with you at all on this, however I would add that I never wanted to imply that from my personal view that the Beatles themselves aren't good. I'm not a rock guy so I don't make it a habit to listen to that genre. That being said, Elder has made me realise I have a taste for psychedelic prog-rock, so who knows what'll happen.

I'm a kid from the late 90's, but that has never impacted my taste and enjoyment of the music that came before. Marvin Gaye, The Police, Otis Reddingfield, the Bee Gee's, doesn't matter how old their music is, I think their element and identify shines through gloriously.

Edit: Though you may have me pinned a little with historical curiosity. I've always had such a deep appreciation and love for exploring the great history of the world. With all these fascinating things that are all around us in the past, I fail to see why people constantly clamour for "the new thing" all the time ::sailor-embarrassed

I think I should write a note here and now that this post doesn't reflect my stance on how I think the Beetles are not good. It is more of a way to describe the paradox of the context I provided in perhaps the way we sequentially experienced media of various things might have affected our ability to enjoy something that came before which set things in stone.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Connect with us

Support this Site

RGT relies on you to stay afloat. Help covering the site costs and get some pretty Level 7 perks too.

Featured Video

Latest Threads

Recommend and Hidden gems of N64 Dreamcast and GameCube

What are hidden gems and really need games on N64 Dreamcast and GameCube you know open to new...
Read more

Does your significant other interfere with your gaming?

My girlfriend SAYS she's okay with me playing video games, but she complains about it every time...
Read more

VALVe Thread

We already know our favorite developer making peak after peak that refuses to make a third entry...
Read more

Any place to play Poker for fun?

I remember playing PokerTH with friends a lot back in the days, but playing with strangers...
Read more

Ever bought a game that just didn't work?

When I was a kid, many stores gave you the option of buying opened computer games for extremely...
Read more

Online statistics

Members online
229
Guests online
3,686
Total visitors
3,915

Forum statistics

Threads
21,643
Messages
546,463
Members
1,004,310
Latest member
Kirboyo

Today's birthdays

Advertisers

Back
Top