The Beatles

[Albion my Albion]

 

[Insel affe]

I raise you….

 

[Marshy]

I finished it over the weekend. I admit I am a fan, this series just confirmed why, loved it

 

[Bold Seagull]

Peter Jackson blew me away with the World War I footage he edited and updated - that was incredible. This is just as astonishing, the little jokes, the pain behind the eyes. With Harrison gone, Lennon not turning up, Paul not really realising the camera is on him says "and then there were two" and he wells up, and it is the most incredible moment because you know he knows he is powerless to stop it at that point. It feels like a film about The Beatles with focus on McCartney, and what a genius he was. While the others faff around, he has the drive, the work ethic, the creative outpouring to keep driving it all forwards. He doesn't want a solo career, he wants the group to go on, completely at odds with how history has judged him. Amazing the moment others are back stabbing Yoko, and he's defending her and John, he's cool her coming in, he quite likes her, doesn't see it as an issue, let them do what they want to do. Everything about Paul is for the band, but you can see how his focus and drive is unsettling to the others, how do you compete to get a look in with someone that good? Feels like you are inside something magical. Jackson resists narration, too many cuts, it just flows through like you are in the room with them. Loved it.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Whether you like them or not they were a complete musical phenomenon. The difficult second album ?

8 Years, 229 songs, 21 studio albums, five live albums, 63 singles

Different parts of their careers go in and out of fashion for me. Today

 

[Stato]

Here we go again. I'm starting to feel sorry for the Beatles as it's not them. They never asked to have so much drivel written about them:

The Beatles transcend time, geography, demographics and personal taste | Margaret Sullivan

As the anniversary of John Lennon’s murder approaches, we are reminded again that the band’s magic never disappears

www.theguardian.com

"The Beatles endure. They transcend time, geography, demographics and personal taste."

All art can transcend time, geography and demographics Margaret - If you like it.

However, no art transcends personal taste. Think about what you've written. If something is not to your personal taste, how can it make you like it?

 

[aolstudios]

Here we go again. I'm starting to feel sorry for the Beatles as it's not them. They never asked to have so much drivel written about them:

The Beatles transcend time, geography, demographics and personal taste | Margaret Sullivan

As the anniversary of John Lennon’s murder approaches, we are reminded again that the band’s magic never disappears

www.theguardian.com

"The Beatles endure. They transcend time, geography, demographics and personal taste."

All art can transcend time, geography and demographics Margaret - If you like it.

However, no art transcends personal taste. Think about what you've written. If something is not to your personal taste, how can it make you like it?

I guess their point is the Beatles covered & started so many genres that it would be difficult to not like a decent amount of what they did?..

 

[Stato]

I guess their point is the Beatles covered & started so many genres that it would be difficult to not like a decent amount of what they did?..

That's not what the article says and anyway.... they didn't.

 

[aolstudios]

That's not what the article says and anyway.... they didn't.

Rightio

 

[Perkino]

A stat I heard on the radio...Paul McCartney earns more money each year from 'Wonderful Christmas Time' then from all his Beatles songs combined

 

[jakarta]

Still sublime.

 

[Brovion]

Here we go again. I'm starting to feel sorry for the Beatles as it's not them. They never asked to have so much drivel written about them:

The Beatles transcend time, geography, demographics and personal taste | Margaret Sullivan

As the anniversary of John Lennon’s murder approaches, we are reminded again that the band’s magic never disappears

www.theguardian.com

"The Beatles endure. They transcend time, geography, demographics and personal taste."

All art can transcend time, geography and demographics Margaret - If you like it.

However, no art transcends personal taste. Think about what you've written. If something is not to your personal taste, how can it make you like it?

I guess the point they were (clumsily) trying to make is that whilst you might not like the Beatles personally, you can't dismiss them as inconsequential crap. But yeah, a bit overblown.

 

[JBizzle]

Here we go again. I'm starting to feel sorry for the Beatles as it's not them. They never asked to have so much drivel written about them:

The Beatles transcend time, geography, demographics and personal taste | Margaret Sullivan

As the anniversary of John Lennon’s murder approaches, we are reminded again that the band’s magic never disappears

www.theguardian.com

"The Beatles endure. They transcend time, geography, demographics and personal taste."

All art can transcend time, geography and demographics Margaret - If you like it.

However, no art transcends personal taste. Think about what you've written. If something is not to your personal taste, how can it make you like it?

I'm not sure I entirely agree. Art endures if it's celebrated and enjoyed by enough people. I doubt history will remember the Beatles just because I like them. Individual influence isn't that great.

Either way, music dates worse than art physical art in my opinion. Anyone can look at the statue of David and recognise it as remarkable, or stare up at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and be in awe of the craftsmanship.

With music, it's more often taken at face value. Would many of the Beatles albums chart top 10 if released now? No, but that's not their purpose any more. You can still enjoy them (or not) but they stand more as a historical marker in the explosion of creativity that generated loads of other musical styles on a global style.

As with everything, it's about that amazing thing then so many people (not you Stato, just generally) choose to ignore to score points: Context

 

[Mellotron]

Peter Jackson blew me away with the World War I footage he edited and updated - that was incredible. This is just as astonishing, the little jokes, the pain behind the eyes. With Harrison gone, Lennon not turning up, Paul not really realising the camera is on him says "and then there were two" and he wells up, and it is the most incredible moment because you know he knows he is powerless to stop it at that point. It feels like a film about The Beatles with focus on McCartney, and what a genius he was. While the others faff around, he has the drive, the work ethic, the creative outpouring to keep driving it all forwards. He doesn't want a solo career, he wants the group to go on, completely at odds with how history has judged him. Amazing the moment others are back stabbing Yoko, and he's defending her and John, he's cool her coming in, he quite likes her, doesn't see it as an issue, let them do what they want to do. Everything about Paul is for the band, but you can see how his focus and drive is unsettling to the others, how do you compete to get a look in with someone that good? Feels like you are inside something magical. Jackson resists narration, too many cuts, it just flows through like you are in the room with them. Loved it.

Also that McCartney is the one person who seems to understand how massive a deal culturally The Beatles are, and that they won't be anything like as big separately.

It's a fascinating situation/story.

 

[Mellotron]

Whether you like them or not they were a complete musical phenomenon. The difficult second album ?

8 Years, 229 songs, 21 studio albums, five live albums, 63 singles

Different parts of their careers go in and out of fashion for me. Today

The greatest of all time, and it isn't even close.

I struggle to think of another band with anything like the same depth, variety, innovation, quality etc.

 

[Stato]

I guess the point they were (clumsily) trying to make is that whilst you might not like the Beatles personally, you can't dismiss them as inconsequential crap. But yeah, a bit overblown.

Although the hagiography of the band has gone utterly crazy from the CD era onwards, and this annoys some of us, I'm not sure whether I've ever heard anyone dismiss them as inconsequential. Remove the over the top statements and all the article actually says is that it's sad that John Lennon got shot and that lots of people like the Beatles. Next week our Guardian correspondent shares universal truths about the Pope's religion and ursine toilet habits.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Although the hagiography of the band has gone utterly crazy in the post CD era, and this annoys some of us, I'm not sure whether I've ever heard anyone dismiss them as inconsequential. Remove the over the top statements and all the article actually says is that it's sad that John Lennon got shot and that lots of people like the Beatles. Next week our Guardian correspondent reveals yet shares universal truths about the Pope's religion and ursine toile habits.

Would you prefer them to include a throwaway line at the bottom to the effect:
"Some people may have read this who don't like The Beatles. In compensation for having wasted their time with this article, here's a picture of some kittens"

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I'm not sure I entirely agree. Art endures if it's celebrated and enjoyed by enough people. I doubt history will remember the Beatles just because I like them. Individual influence isn't that great.

Either way, music dates worse than art physical art in my opinion. Anyone can look at the statue of David and recognise it as remarkable, or stare up at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and be in awe of the craftsmanship.

With music, it's more often taken at face value. Would many of the Beatles albums chart top 10 if released now? No, but that's not their purpose any more. You can still enjoy them (or not) but they stand more as a historical marker in the explosion of creativity that generated loads of other musical styles on a global style.

As with everything, it's about that amazing thing then so many people (not you Stato, just generally) choose to ignore to score points: Context

To be fair, the reissues of Beatles albums have charted in recent years (I just quickly checked a couple of them and Abbey Road apparently hit no.1 in the UK in 2019, the White Album made the top 10 in America in 2018).
I'm not sure I agree about how different forms of art date, David and the Sistine Chapel are clearly of their time without it affecting how great they are, and you could say the same about many classical pieces from the 18th century, jazz tunes from the 40s and rock songs from the 60s/70s.
Having said that, David is clearly a knock off of all the classical statues that predate it by over a thousand years, so presumably all the people who moan about the Beatles ripping off all their best ideas would insist it SUCKS.

 

[Stato]

Would you prefer them to include a throwaway line at the bottom to the effect:
"Some people may have read this who don't like The Beatles. In compensation for having wasted their time with this article, here's a picture of some kittens"

It doesn't waste the time of people who don't like the Beatles, it wastes everyone's time. Regardless of your personal taste, everybody knows they are popular and I presume that everyone thinks that Lennon's murder was awful.

I read the article because I'm a great one for all sorts of Gaudi ballet and, even though I'm not moved by most of their music, I have a great interest in the story of the Beatles set in context. Less 'four lads that shook the world,' more the exchanges of artistic ideas across the Atlantic of which they were a very consequential part. What riles me, as I've said on here a lot of times before, is when this one band is taken out of the context of everything that was going on around them and given the label of 'genius'. All art is in some way a product of, or a reaction to its time. The tendency for critics to label selected artists as genius ignores this truth and this belittles the contributions of the many. It seems to me that this is a particular trend when critics look at 'low art' - the Beatles were geniuses, Shakespeare was either a genius or didn't even write his own plays, because this is a more palatable view than accepting that most lasting art comes from the people.

I wouldn't say no to a picture of some kittens though.

 

[Stato]

Having said that, David is clearly a knock off of all the classical statues that predate it by over a thousand years, so presumably all the people who moan about the Beatles ripping off all their best ideas would insist it SUCKS.

I'm guessing this is aimed at me. Not a great fan of any classical sculpture. I appreciate the craft and the way it moves other people, but the visual just doesn't move me like the musical does. Call me a peasant, but I prefer my 'David' with added 'Watts'.