The Beatles

(by which I mean they are poop)

i'm not fond but eh, each to their own

it's when stoners are all 'wah beatles are overrated' that o_O walks in and sets up a craft stall

When anyone says anyone is overrated my reaction is usually 'why do you care stfu'

NV and Tom D otm

byrds rule 4ever

my man! throw the beatles down a well imo

I would read the shit out of a Lewisohn-type book on Zeppelin tbrr. Or Miles Davis.

― hashtag sizzler (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 5, 2013 9:43 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Ditto (re: Miles, but the Who instead of Zep).

Lewisohn-type books on Zeppelin exist, but it's just huge tour diaries. Here's another thing to consider: the Beatles didn't tour during the last half of their career, so any book about them will necessarily have to focus on studio crafting for this period. With a Zep book or a Who book or even a Beach Boys book there is lots of tour listings, concert reviews, live photos, promotional posters, etc.

Also, in my experience (basically amounting to having friends tell me about their kids) kids of grade school age still discover the Beatles without parental prompting and are like whoa I found the best music.

― 2 huxtables and a sousaphone (Jon Lewis), Wednesday, June 5, 2013 2:04 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

OTFM. This is what happened to me. I mean my folks had a few Beatles records and my favorite movie as a kid was "Yellow Submarine" on a bootleg VHS but discovering each of their albums by myself was a life-changing experience.

Thank God I never 'discovered' them

Christopher Columbus discovered 'em

Dr dre discovered em

Beatles by Dre.

I would like to throw them in a drain and then put a cast iron disc over dem

Christopher Cross discovered 'em

Superman picked up a cast iron drain cover and discovered em

They lived in a museum where people came to see 'em.

things that are boringly obvious to like but still awesome: the beatles, citizen kane, peanuts, pepperoni on pizza, batman

read that as peanuts on pizza and was like hrm!

please please please let there be an actual beatles by dre product sometime in my lifetime.

Not citizen kane

I think John messed up the lyrics to "Day Tripper." Shouldn't it be a round-trip ticket instead of one-way? Otherwise she'll be staying wherever she went.

She took him half the way there.

This thread convinced me to give these guys a listen but apparently they're not on spotify so fuck them

Not citizen kane

now who's the contrarian eh?

i guess that anyone can disagree over an individual work, welles blows my mind in many other movies. it's hardly the same level of contrarianism as writing off ten years of extraordinarily productive output form a band imo?

citizen kane is dope

but... you can dislike an album but not a band?

not this band, that would be fronting?

otm

haha yeah it is pretty funny -- we were driving somewhere last Sunday, and listening to one of those breakfast with the beatles things on the radio, and the DJ was listing off all of these obscure facts/dates etc. and i was wondering if there was any other pop cultural phenomenon that allowed for such deep nerdiness.

― tylerw, Tuesday, 4 June 2013 16:26 (4 days ago) Permalink

My father joked years ago that they Beatles have their weekly Sunday morning shows on the radio because the Beatles are a kind of religion to some.

Strange but true: When I go to Barnes & Noble, Elvis CDs (end of recording career: 1977) and Roy Orbison CDs (end of recording career: 1988) are filed under "Oldies," while Beatles CDs (end of recording career: 1970) are filed under "Rock/Pop." As a major Elvis fan and someone who wouldn't listen to a Beatles song unless you paid me (not much, but definitely in advance), that seems kinda fucked.

have asked workers @ amoeba about this before and it has to do with when they were most popular not when they stopped making records. since the beatles have never stopped selling they remain in rock. if that makes sense.

yerp, makes sense to me. "oldies" doesn't refer to the age of the music, it refers to the kind of people who buy it. roy orbison and elvis are great, but it's generally older people buying their stuff these days. whereas, due to the continued worldwide media conspiracy, the beatles are still relevant and cool to younger people.

I'm guessing most people under 25 wouldn't listen to Elvis unless you paid them either.

My parents were just in Memphis and of course went to Graceland, so I got to thinking: for the life of me I couldn't figure out what if any cultural resonance Elvis has retained. Elvis had his share of awesome, but I've never met anyone who was an earnest Elvis fan the way many people are Beatles (or Stones) fans. It seems when Elvis is invoked, if he is invoked at all, it is as kitsch or punchline, which of course is not fair to his legacy, even though his legacy, ironically, absolutely invites it. Now, the Beatles solo have all invited and deserved barbs as kitch or crap or has-beens or saps, but the Beatles proper have remained pretty bulletproof. They're like a perpetual motion machine, a pop music comet circling the globe and constantly being discovered by young people staring up waiting for it to pass. Can't think of any other acts outside some sort of communal/collective scene (like the Dead) like that.

Especially for music that old. I mean, sometimes I imagine there as as few people listening to Buddy Holly as there are listening to Big Star. I guess Johnny Cash has endured as a trans-generational icon, thanks to his late-life finish line sprint.

I've never met anyone who was an earnest Elvis fan the way many people are Beatles (or Stones) fans.

This is a truly sad statement. I believe you, but it's a fucking tragedy nonetheless. Elvis Presley was one of the five or ten greatest musical performers this country has ever produced - up there with Louis Armstrong, Frank Sinatra and Miles Davis - and the fact that he's been reduced to "kitsch or punchline" is something Americans with functioning ears should be ashamed of.

My mother is an absolutely earnest Elvis fan. So is my nephew, or was as of a couple of years ago. Mom is 65, nephew is 17.

I'm a big Elvis fan, though it took a while, and have never willingly sat through a single one of his movies. The number one complaint I hear about Elvis is that he "stole black peoples' music". Which isn't really a complaint because how does that make him differ from every other musician of the latter 20th century?

It is a tragedy, almost a classical tragedy. Certainly I know people who are Elvis fans, but not to the extent that I know massive Beatles fans. Elvis deserved a mass redemption he never got, but the fact that "Elvis impersonator" is probably the first thing a lot of people think of when they think of Elvis pretty much sums up said tragedy.

I wonder, had that massive decade by decade boxed set reissue program kicked off a year or two ago rather than whenever it did, if the timing might have been better. I hate to be all internet about this, but it would have allowed for a lot more young, engaged voices to asses and re-assess rather than whatever it got in the pages (back when there were pages) of the usual suspects. FWIW, there's exactly one Elvis review in the 'Fork archives.

My experience and perception of the elvis legacy is so far removed from what you're describing it's bewildering. Are you sure you mean the elvis, the elvis presley?

Are you American? Honest question, because maybe this is a matter of perspective. You know about Elvis impersonators and impersonations, right? Which proliferated far more than any, say, Beatles impersonations ever did, and rarely emphasized the music over the jumpsuit and voice? Do you remember the Skinny Elvis vs. Fat Elvis stamp debate? Peanut butter and banana sandwiches? The jungle room? Doing kung fu moves on stage? There are plenty (like me!) who find a lot to like in Elvis, and love certain periods or songs or whatever. But Elvis the icon as I encounter him in the wild really does seem to be kitsch. Obviously Elvis was a huge, important musical figure. So was Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Johnny Cash, lots of folks who were perhaps less famous/successful. But those other cats imo are remembered in different ways than Elvis seems to be (which is different from how he should be remembered).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_impersonator

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JbBVKQDTWQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdxr0z3SZ74

Two things I'd say as to why time has been kinder to the Beatles. First, most of Elvis's greatest music is concentrated into two very brief periods: '56 to when he goes into the army in '58 (the Sun stuff was recorded earlier, but not really heard till he became big), and the comeback in '68/69. The Beatles have a fairly solid block of music from '63 to '70; if you're a fan, you won't like it all, but you probably have favourite songs strewn across that block. Also--related--while I can certainly see where someone might view Elvis's greatest music as greater than the Beatles' greatest (not me, but many do), I think it's hard to argue that Elvis didn't make more bad music than the Beatles. For whatever reason--maybe the lingering evidence of all those '60s movies--and fair or not, his less-than-great self seems to live on on almost equal footing with his genius. Solo work aside, that's not true of the Beatles.

It's an interesting question, one that I've tried to figure out myself. I think there a whole bunch of reasons.

Are you American? Honest question

lol

as a yank, my experience of elvis is akin to j-in-c's

the whole thing seemed to hit larry pretty hard in 'rattle and hum' tho i ascribe rather greater depth to our deemster

also my landlord, a lifelong brooklyn resident who looks like a latter-day maradona, has 5THBTLE on his car license plate

Elvis needs a decent biopic.