London Fog wrote:

Ok, let's give you the benefit of the doubt, so men don't own the 20th century, can you name one female band that might have done?

Only one comes to mind is The Supremes.

They are a singing group not a band.

London Fog wrote:

None of these are bands!

True!

Mike Collins wrote:
This thread is really miss titled.  It's really "What are your 3 favorite bands?" or "What 3 do you think had the most influence?".   And many have.  Not just three.  Hell, I'm not a fan but Nirvana influenced a generation.  So did the Beatles.  And the Beach Boys.   

Just about every band mentioned will be in history books somewhere 

It's not really if you LIKE their music or not.  You can't deny what influences bands or individuals made in the history of music.

Yes this is an important point.
Are we talking about a history book about the history of pop music in the 20th century; or are we talking about a history of art or general history book?
Nirvana could have existed without The Beatles they couldn't have existed without The Pistols. Cobain said so himself several times and even named an album Nevermind.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Tell you what.

Go ask an art curator which will sell for more and shows more talent?

The sketches by John Lennon

Or anything from the Sex Pistols...

Anyone who is honest is going to point out that John Lennon had more artistic talent in his toes than the Sex Pistols ever had.

Oh please; don't mix up artistic talent with value because of popular iconic status.


I don't have to do anything else to do to knock that out of the water.

But as far as iconic staus to the actual arwtork it doesn't come bigger than Jamie Reid the Sex Pistols artist.


That is as relevant now as it ever was and well known to most and still has a profound influence on the Brit Art bratpack. Whereas any artwork associated with The Beatles looks as dated as hell and of limited impact in the modern age.

As for curators let's see the VandA
http://www.vam.ac.uk/page/v/vivienne-westwood/
Incidentally there is a David Bowie exhibition:
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/exhibition … -bowie-is/

Nothing about the Beatles or their art to speak of apart from some David Bailey photos in the shop.Wheareas the Vivienne Westwood-Jamie Ried-Sex Pistols link is the nexus of punk and a major thing at the VandA museum.

Justin wrote:
We fucked it more pre-1970. A lot more.

The largest damage to habitat has been done post 1970. The mega rice project destroyed an area of forest the size of Belgium alone. The Aral sea was destroyed for cotton, and the Amazon rainforest has disappereared at its fastest ever rate.

and the US have troops deployed in 150 nations and been involved with many wars.

Justin wrote:
Nothing like the attitudes surrounding Vietnam.

We have the world run by huge corporations with scant regard for individual workers

Justin wrote:
We also have labor laws. We've seen a downtick in union membership because labor laws and better employer treatment has made them less relevant.

Our labour laws came in in the forties and the damaging effects of Trade Union activities in the late 60's and 70's were hardly positive for the economy; resulting in a 3 day week.

and music was totally stagnated before punk.

Justin wrote:
The late 60's and early 70's were a creative explosion. Comments on society, war, injustice. Complete shakeup in the way music was presented. No one listening to Chuck Berry or Bill Haley would envision the acid rock of Hendrix, the abstractions of Pink Floyd, or even the social commentary of what would be an "ordinary" group like the Temptations.

I wouldn't attack the innovations of other bands. Just the beatles. But there is no doubt all that wizardy stuff like Yes and things like the Electric Light Orchestra had sent anything the Beatles were responsible for so far up it's own arse it is fair to say stagnation was there. What wasn't stagnated was ultimately that which influenced punk and it's children like the goth and industrial scenes: stuff like Bowie.

There is no long lasting influence of The Beatles on fashion Art or cinema in the way that punk has.

Justin wrote:
I can look at any long hair in the street and say, "The Beatles had a direct influence on that." I can look at my grandkids' purple mohawks and think, "Ah, that started with punk," although they'll most likely lose that by the time they're looking for a real job.

I think the designer at Fendi has a real job. And much of what our industry here is geared to is servicing that industry

Justin wrote:
BTW, I consider the Who to be the progenitors of punk.

"I staggered back to the underground
And the breeze blew back my hair
I remember throwing punches around
And preaching from my chair"

Sounds punkish.

It is not punk. Simply singing about anger is not punk. It must have all the other ingredients to be punk. It is like saying a square of chocolate is a black forest gateaux otherwise. The Who influenced punk definitely. But punk as a movement has at its nexus the McClaren-Westwood-Pistols nexus and its intellectual and conceptual unwritten art  manifesto. They were the chefs. Other people made some chocolate cup cakes at the same time.

Any questioning of authority owes more to punk than The Beatles.

Justin wrote:
Well, I'm gobsmacked. The riots, the sit-ins, the demonstrations, the extreme polarization. I didn't see any qualitative societal uptick in that stuff once we got past that.

Quite. Which means it didn't have an lasting influence. The largest demonstration in UK history was connected with objection in banning foxhunting btw with an estimated number just short of half a million. Noting to do with the Beatles and as McCartney incidentally was one of those campaigning to ban it I think that rather ironic.

I didn't live through the fifties either but can appreciate what happened then in music re rock and roll had far more profound long lasting effect. You wouldn't have had the Beatles without it and you wouldn't have had The Pistols without it.

Justin wrote:
I agree with the first and last part of that. But for the change that happened, there was a catalyst at the crossroads. The Beatles weren't the only catalyst that pushed society into a different direction (that would come to include punk and rap and all the other evolutionary branches). But they were an iconic one.

We don't see much of a legacy with The Beatles in terms of contemporary culture at the cutting edge. Punk and rap are different as they are still at that edge.

Eliza C wrote:
I don't own a single record of The Beatles either and neither do my parents who also consider them massively overated. They were Stones followers.

Justin wrote:
I don't know that they were overrated. They just weren't all that appealing to me. I always enjoyed the baseline rock of the Stones - although once they hit "Start Me Up," I knew their time for making notable new music was apparently over.

Yes I'd agree the Stones aren't cutting edge now. But their early music sounds as fresh and influential as ever. No Stones no Primal Scream for example. Whereas the modern bands the Beatles infleunce are extremely MOR.

legacys7 wrote:
Good point regarding rap. One could make the argument that NWA aka Niggas With Attitudes would go into the history books. Why? Their introduction to gangsta rap and it's influence across the country, including the west coast dress style from the hood, had a major impact on the masses. We may not like it, but they were controversial and their rap style of the hood was something that many could either relate to, due to them coming from the hood and it eventually becoming mainstream where rappers like Tupac Shukar got popular off of this genre of music. It was something that no one had heard nor seen before NWA.

Well they were a major part of it but there were others like Ice-T etc. And we can go back to Grandmaster Flash etc.

Mike Collins wrote:
This thread is really miss titled.  It's really "What are your 3 favorite bands?" or "What 3 do you think had the most influence?".   And many have.  Not just three.  Hell, I'm not a fan but Nirvana influenced a generation.  So did the Beatles.  And the Beach Boys.   

Just about every band mentioned will be in history books somewhere 

It's not really if you LIKE their music or not.  You can't deny what influences bands or individuals made in the history of music.

The thread is not mis-titled...it is what I titled it: three 20th century bands that will be in history [books].  If people are not making suggestions based on my original thread title - that is on them, not ME.  I was looking for ideas from people on which bands they thought were significant enough that they would be slam-dunks for future historians to mention.

'Sorry...I never meant to start World War III!!! 

Gary Melton wrote:
The thread is not mis-titled...it is what I titled it: three 20th century bands that will be in history [books].  If people are not making suggestions based on my original thread title - that is on, them not ME.  I was looking for ideas from people on which bands they thought were significant enough that they would be slam-dunks for future historians to mention.

'Sorry...I never meant to start World War III!!! 

I apologise Gary. I don't think there is nastiness though. Just what constitutes historical importance. I don't think popularity is necessarily any indication of historical importance. I think The Beatles were part of a general time of societal change in the sixties of which they were a  symptom - and a commercially engineered one at that. Whereas the Sex Pistols started a movement that is still now affecting art fashion cinema and scoial attitudes as well as music at a cutting edge. Therefore I think they deserve to be in whereas I'd question the Beatles wer as influential as The Stones in terms of longevity. Paint it Black v I am The Walrus?  One is a profound dark thudding art piece as relevant now to the human condition and the other is nothing more than a clumsy and dated piece of whimsy.

Justin wrote:
We fucked it more pre-1970. A lot more.

Eliza C wrote:
The largest damage to habitat has been done post 1970. The mega rice project destroyed an area of forest the size of Belgium alone. The Aral sea was destroyed for cotton, and the Amazon rainforest has disappereared at its fastest ever rate.

Had it not been for environmental pushback and regulation (EPA was founded 1970), at least in the US, our air and water would be much dirtier, industrial waste more prevalent, the woodlands more deforested, the wetlands drier, and so on.

Humans use resources. As the population grows and the needs grow, there will be more impact. And yeah, unfortunately, regulations in the industrialized world can shift environmental rapacity to the less-developed world (much like city regulation shifts sprawl to bedroom communities). However, if we'd continued at the same pace as the 40's and 50's, the US would be in a smog and sewage cesspool by now.

I lived during that time. I did my part to help raise consciousness. There was a huge shift in environmental awareness and stewardship. 

----------

As for the rest, I'll save the bandwidth. Again: I lived during that time. I know what a huge paradigm shift took place in the years immediately north and south of 1970 (remember those mohawked Chinese kids? The relations that begat that started with Nixon in 1972). And unlike my peers, I wasn't even doing drugs then (which was another big shift), so my memory really is pretty clear about it. I can be told that things didn't happen the way I directly observed them happen, but it's not a statement with much traction.

And rock'n'roll was at the cutting edge (and arguably one of the catalysts) of that paradigm shift, and the Beatles were, for better or worse, the centerpiece of it.

Justin wrote:
I kinda don't want to spend more bandwidth on an endless downward spiral (actually, helix). But a couple things:

Had it not been for environmental pushback and regulation (EPA was founded 1970), at least in the US, our air and water would be much dirtier, industrial waste more prevalent, the woodlands more deforested, the wetlands drier, and so on.

Humans use resources. As the population grows and the needs grow, there will be more impact. And yeah, unfortunately, regulations in the industrialized world can shift environmental rapacity to the less-developed world (much like city regulation shifts sprawl to bedroom communities). However, if we'd continued at the same pace as the 40's and 50's, the US would be in a smog and sewage cesspool by now.

I lived during that time. I did my part to help raise consciousness. There was a huge shift in environmental awareness and stewardship. 

----------

As for the rest, I'll save the bandwidth. Again: I lived during that time. I know what a huge paradigm shift took place in the years immediately north and south of 1970. And unlike my peers, I wasn't even doing drugs then (which was another big shift), so my memory really is pretty clear about it. I can be told that things didn't happen the way I directly observed them happen, but it's not a statement with much traction.

Much of that concern was inappropriately aimed. Greenpeace and IFAW for example had the impact of banning seal produce and ruining the economy of the very people who have throughout the last few thousands years stewarded the environment most effectively. And much of the outcry was because of a fraudulently staged film by ARTEK.

I wonder what the total environmental cost to the planet in terms of vinyl and paper and tehnology geared to wasteful change for consumerism was from the Beatles alone? A massive hypocrisy is the legacy though it may have been well intended. We had a bad environmental pollution and smogs because we were largely reliant on coal until c 1980. Mrs Thatcher therefore did more to ease that than The Beatles or environmental protest. And Zac Goldsmith is now a Tory MP btw. So environmentalism and the broad left hippy thing are not necessarily mutially exclusive.

You owe the new stewardship of the planet to academics and people like The Royal Geographical Society and NERC and universities and conservation organisations like the IUCN and WWF and the huge  switch in emphasis behind the scenes to working with indigenous peoples and traditional methods and practices not the money raking environmental lobby that came out of the sixties. There are those who talk and raise money through campaigns and there are those who get on with the real work and research. That does not come through protest.

I applaud you if you are concerned about the planet's resources etc but please realise there are other best placed through years of devoting their academic lives to it to know what the score is. You are still far better off giving money to reputable organisations like those I have mentioned than any leftist or animal right influenced lobby group whose politics often counter productive to genuine concerns for the environment.

Eliza C wrote:

Justin wrote:
We fucked it more pre-1970. A lot more.

The largest damage to habitat has been done post 1970. The mega rice project destroyed an area of forest the size of Belgium alone. The Aral sea was destroyed for cotton, and the Amazon rainforest has disappereared at its fastest ever rate.

and the US have troops deployed in 150 nations and been involved with many wars.

Justin wrote:
Nothing like the attitudes surrounding Vietnam.

We have the world run by huge corporations with scant regard for individual workers

Justin wrote:
We also have labor laws. We've seen a downtick in union membership because labor laws and better employer treatment has made them less relevant.

Our labour laws came in in the forties and the damaging effects of Trade Union activities in the late 60's and 70's were hardly positive for the economy; resulting in a 3 day week.

and music was totally stagnated before punk.

Justin wrote:
The late 60's and early 70's were a creative explosion. Comments on society, war, injustice. Complete shakeup in the way music was presented. No one listening to Chuck Berry or Bill Haley would envision the acid rock of Hendrix, the abstractions of Pink Floyd, or even the social commentary of what would be an "ordinary" group like the Temptations.

I wouldn't attack the innovations of other bands. Just the beatles. But there is no doubt all that wizardy stuff like Yes and things like the Electric Light Orchestra had sent anything the Beatles were responsible for so far up it's own arse it is fair to say stagnation was there. What wasn't stagnated was ultimately that which influenced punk and it's children like the goth and industrial scenes: stuff like Bowie.

There is no long lasting influence of The Beatles on fashion Art or cinema in the way that punk has.

Justin wrote:
I can look at any long hair in the street and say, "The Beatles had a direct influence on that." I can look at my grandkids' purple mohawks and think, "Ah, that started with punk," although they'll most likely lose that by the time they're looking for a real job.

I think the designer at Fendi has a real job. And much of what our industry here is geared to is servicing that industry

Justin wrote:
BTW, I consider the Who to be the progenitors of punk.

"I staggered back to the underground
And the breeze blew back my hair
I remember throwing punches around
And preaching from my chair"

Sounds punkish.

It is not punk. Simply singing about anger is not punk. It must have all the other ingredients to be punk. It is like saying a square of chocolate is a black forest gateaux otherwise. The Who influenced punk definitely. But punk as a movement has at its nexus the McClaren-Westwood-Pistols nexus and its intellectual and conceptual unwritten art  manifesto. They were the chefs. Other people made some chocolate cup cakes at the same time.

Any questioning of authority owes more to punk than The Beatles.

Justin wrote:
Well, I'm gobsmacked. The riots, the sit-ins, the demonstrations, the extreme polarization. I didn't see any qualitative societal uptick in that stuff once we got past that.

Quite. Which means it didn't have an lasting influence. The largest demonstration in UK history was connected with objection in banning foxhunting btw with an estimated number just short of half a million. Noting to do with the Beatles and as McCartney incidentally was one of those campaigning to ban it I think that rather ironic.

I didn't live through the fifties either but can appreciate what happened then in music re rock and roll had far more profound long lasting effect. You wouldn't have had the Beatles without it and you wouldn't have had The Pistols without it.

Justin wrote:
I agree with the first and last part of that. But for the change that happened, there was a catalyst at the crossroads. The Beatles weren't the only catalyst that pushed society into a different direction (that would come to include punk and rap and all the other evolutionary branches). But they were an iconic one.

We don't see much of a legacy with The Beatles in terms of contemporary culture at the cutting edge. Punk and rap are different as they are still at that edge.

Eliza C wrote:
I don't own a single record of The Beatles either and neither do my parents who also consider them massively overated. They were Stones followers.

Justin wrote:
I don't know that they were overrated. They just weren't all that appealing to me. I always enjoyed the baseline rock of the Stones - although once they hit "Start Me Up," I knew their time for making notable new music was apparently over.

Yes I'd agree the Stones aren't cutting edge now. But their early music sounds as fresh and influential as ever. No Stones no Primal Scream for example. Whereas the modern bands the Beatles infleunce are extremely MOR.


Well they were a major part of it but there were others like Ice-T etc. And we can go back to Grandmaster Flash etc.

Different styles of rap. But like the Sex Pistols, their style of rap, clothing and other things affiliated with lifestyle had an impact unlike no other rap group. Common bond, both weren't the first to rap or do punk rock, but their impact still remains to this day.

Eliza C wrote:
I apologise Gary. I don't think there is nastiness though. Just what constitutes historical importance. I don't think popularity is necessarily any indication of historical importance. I think The Beatles were part of a general time of societal change in the sixties of which they were a  symptom - and a commercially engineered one at that. Whereas the Sex Pistols started a movement that is still now affecting art fashion cinema and scoial attitudes as well as music at a cutting edge. Therefore I think they deserve to be in whereas I'd question the Beatles wer as influential as The Stones in terms of longevity. Paint it Black v I am The Walrus?  One is a profound dark thudding art piece as relevant now to the human condition and the other is nothing more than a clumsy and dated piece of whimsy.

I agree that popularity is not necessarily any indication of historical importance (I don't want to start a new war - but a good example of that is Lady Gaga...someone who is immensely popular now, but who will be forgotten even before her death).

That being said - there ARE reasons why certain bands are more popular than others...and the Beatles are pretty close to being as popular today as they were 50 years ago.  The Beatles were absolutely cutting edge in their time, and uniquely enough...they were newly cutting edge about 4 times in less than 10 years.  I truly believe their music will more than stand the test of time, because their music was/is absolutely amazing...especially when you look at the entire body of their work (and all of it amazingly created over a VERY short period of time).

There simply isn't another band (IMHO and in that of many others) - who is not together and recording today - who is more prevalent and relevant today than The Beatles.

Gary Melton wrote:
I agree that popularity is not necessarily any indication of historical importance (I don't want to start a new war - but a good example of that is Lady Gaga...someone who is immensely popular now, but who will be forgotten even before her death).

That being said - there ARE reasons why certain bands are more popular than others...and the Beatles are pretty close to being as popular today as they were 50 years ago.  The Beatles were absolutely cutting edge in their time, and uniquely enough...they were newly cutting edge about 4 times in less than 10 years.  I truly believe their music will more than stand the test of time, because their music was/is absolutely amazing...especially when you look at the entire body of their work (and all of it amazingly created over a VERY short period of time).

There simply isn't another band (IMHO and in that of many others) - who is not together and recording today - who is more prevalent and relevant today than The Beatles.

Show me something from the catwalks or movies or from other cultures showing the Beatles influence now as I have on the last page. You will struggle. You'd do it; but it won't be at the cutting edge. Yes I hear The Beatles every week in the pub and the supermarket and old people dancing at weddings. But whenever I go to a n avant garde fashion or music event or indie cinema or theatre or Art exhibition I am going to hear and see the legacy of The Sex Pistols. Even in many ports here the fashion make up and styling owes an immense amount to punk.

Gary Melton wrote:
You know, the one thing that is really amazing me is the talk on here from some people that The Beatles and their music was commercially engineered...oh my GOD...nothing could be further from the truth.  Anyone who actually lived through the time The Beatles were together would NEVER think that in a million years!

John Lennon was a rebel, a revolutionary, an anarchist...and a genius.  John fought against anything and everything that was even vaguely connected with conformity.  Paul wasn't too far behind John back then (George and Ringo sorta were along for the ride - for the most part).

McCartney alone is worth $1 billion.
So please don't discuss the Beatles and left wing politik to me. They were commercially manufactured, moulded, and incredibly succesful at it. They sold the illusion of revolution while taking your money. They've never had a dime of mine.

Gary Melton wrote:
You know, the one thing that is really amazing me is the talk on here from some people that The Beatles and their music was commercially engineered...oh my GOD...nothing could be further from the truth.  Anyone who actually lived through the time The Beatles were together would NEVER think that in a million years!

John Lennon was a rebel, a revolutionary, an anarchist...and a genius.  John fought against anything and everything that was even vaguely connected with conformity.  Paul wasn't too far behind John back then (while George and Ringo sorta were along for the ride - for the most part).

A-freakin-men
If it wasn't for the Beatles and them coming to the US.  There probably wouldn't have been a British invasion of music.  No Stones, no Floyd, no Zep, no Sex Pistols, no one.

BlueMoonPics wrote:
A-freakin-men
If it wasn't for the Beatles and them coming to the US.  There probably wouldn't have been a British invasion of music.  No Stones, no Floyd, no Zep, no Sex Pistols, no one.

Speculation. The Tornados were number one in the US chart for example before the  Beatles existed. So you already has begun to like the UK beat scene well prior to The Beatles. The Sex Pistols however were not welcomed with such open arms and the tour was dogged by disaster and chaos but that hasn't made their impact on the world less profound. The Beatles were manufactured to take advantage of the US market and The Sex Pistols gave it a massive 'fuck you' sign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjgE4kNSU74

Eliza C wrote:
McCartney alone is worth $1 billion.
So please don't discuss the Beatles and left wing politik to me. They were commercially manufactured, moulded, and incredibly succesful at it. They sold the illusion of revolution while taking your money. They've never had a dime of mine.

I'd bet that NO ONE was more surprised at their immense commercial success than The Beatles themselves.  Yeah, I'm pretty sure part of their plan in forming a band was to make a few bucks...but I'm also sure that they never dreamed in a million years that they would wind up making a tiny fraction of the money they made.

Obviously, you didn't live through the time when they were together.  Anyone who did can tell you that there has never been a "punk" since them who was less bourgeois - or cared less about money or success - than The Beatles at the time they were together.  They were total rebels who could care less what ANYONE thought or did, and (at least during the first few years) they could care less if ANYONE bought their records.

Sure - they became about money at some point (though not sure if John EVER did)...but in the beginning, they were so far from being "commercially engineered" - the mention of it concerning them is LAUGHABLE!  The couple of comparisons made of them to the Monkees is WAY beyond laughable and ludicrous...something akin to comparing a paint by numbers painting done by a 7 year old to something done by Rembrandt.

Eliza C wrote:
Speculation.

A nice summation of the entire thread.

As for commercial manipulation, the Beatles, the Sex Pistols, and almost every rocker, is accused of that. But that's not why McCartney wrote "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" (which was immediately banned in GB). As an example.

Eliza C wrote:
...The Beatles were manufactured to take advantage of the US market...

You REALLY don't get it.  I can see how someone could look at The Beatles career 50 years later and MAYBE think that they were "manufactured", but that doesn't make it true.  I honestly can't think of another band of any kind that was LESS "manufactured" than The Beatles...and the fact that they were NOT "manufactured" is the reason for their success.  Their originality, creativity and innovation was what endeared them to millions so quickly and for so many years.

The Beatles themselves were responsible for who and what they were...and for all of their success (some of it coming to them, despite themselves).  John Lennon and Paul McCartney created The Beatles...not any managers or handlers or anyone else.  Are you kidding me - John especially would NEVER have allowed anyone else to tell him what to do for a second!

The billions of dollars came to them because there was no way to stop that from happening, not because someone "engineered" them into a money machine.  Genius like The Beatles will come out - it can't be stopped.

Justin wrote:
A nice summation of the entire thread.

As for commercial manipulation, the Beatles, the Sex Pistols, and almost every rocker, is accused of that. But that's not why McCartney wrote "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" (which was immediately banned in GB). As an example.

Yes but CS Jackson summed it up earlier in the thread when attacking Lydon for pointing out the difference:

"Spoken by a man who was placed in a band created as an art exercise by Malcolm McClaren..."

The Pistols committed commercial suicide in the United States as part of their raison d'etre.

Those two reasons alone should be enough to make the difference clear.

The fact that McCartney wrote a song about Ireland is neither here nor there. He wrote that when with Wings and Wings were utter garbage : the most hardened Beatles fan will acknowledge that. It was banned and had no infleunce on anything; and the very existence of the band Wings were part of what was making music stagnant. God Save the Queen by stark contrast was banned and reached number one in jubilee week. And bands the Pistols inspired actually made a huge difference to Ireland. Such as Stiff Little Fingers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2Gov4tTB7M


Just a few years later. You CANNOT compare the two in terms of influence. The latter brought people together in a climate that made change inevitable.

Gary Melton wrote:
You REALLY don't get it.  I can see how someone could look at The Beatles career 50 years later and MAYBE think that they were "manufactured", but that doesn't make it true.  I honestly can't think of another band of any kind that was LESS "manufactured" than The Beatles...and the fact that they were NOT "manufactured" is the reason for their success.  Their originality, creativity and innovation was what endeared them to millions so quickly and for so many years.

The Beatles themselves were responsible for who and what they were...and for all of their success (some of it coming to them, despite themselves).  John Lennon and Paul McCartney created The Beatles...not any managers or handlers or anyone else.  Are you kidding me - John especially would NEVER have allowed anyone else to tell him what to do for a second!

The billions of dollars came to them because there was no way to stop that from happening, not because someone "engineered" them into a money machine.  Genius like The Beatles will come out - it can't be stopped.

They were packaged from virtually the word go for consumption by Brian Epstein and then by a whole host of record companies and even now Apple and EMI are cashing in.

Commercial success is no indication of genius.
Many genuine geniuses have died broke.
And I am getting rather tired of raising the point of Tretchikoff. The greatest selling image of the 20th century and it made him very rich but he will have no place in any history of Art :

Not widely regarded as a genius then despite huge commercial success and popularity.

So The Beatles were designed and packaged to make money through similar pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Whereas the Pistols attitude to record companies and once again to the American audience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPWnt0nkLI

A genuine 'fuck off' to the corporations and record buying public.

But then those British with more discerning taste always did have a rather dim view of The Beatles:

"Drinking Dom Perignon '53 above the temperature of 38 degrees" is "as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs."

—James Bond, secret agent in "Goldfinger," 1964

And some more contemporary criticism:

"The Beatles are the absolute curse of modern indie music… my favorite Beatle is Yoko Ono; without Yoko's influence I don't think there would be any Beatles music I could listen to."

—David Keenan, author and music critic, 2009

" 'Love Me Do'…a melody so weepingly banal it sounds like a fingering exercise for primary-school recorder practice."

—Michael Deacon, music critic, 2009

Gary Melton wrote:
I'd bet that NO ONE was more surprised at their immense commercial success than The Beatles themselves.  Yeah, I'm pretty sure part of their plan in forming a band was to make a few bucks...but I'm also sure that they never dreamed in a million years that they would wind up making a tiny fraction of the money they made.

Obviously, you didn't live through the time when they were together.  Anyone who did can tell you that there has never been a "punk" since them who was less bourgeois - or cared less about money or success - than The Beatles at the time they were together.  They were total rebels who could care less what ANYONE thought or did, and (at least during the first few years) they could care less if ANYONE bought their records.

Sure - they became about money at some point (though not sure if John EVER did)...but in the beginning, they were so far from being "commercially engineered" - the mention of it concerning them is LAUGHABLE!  The couple of comparisons made of them to the Monkees is WAY beyond laughable and ludicrous...something akin to comparing a paint by numbers painting done by a 7 year old to something done by Rembrandt.

You are continuing to use the word punk completely out of context; as though it were a subsitute word for rebel. It isn't. It is much more sophisticated.
And I think comparing the early beatles songs which are childish ditties to what the Pistols were which was so much more than just the music is to fail to understand what punk is.
I lived through neither as I wasn't born. But my parents did and they would not consider The Beatles serious music next to The Stones or The Pistols or even Roxy Music and Bowie. They'd consider it commercial dross.

I didn't live through the last ice age either but it doesn't stop me having a more sophisticated understanding of what may have been happening re the climate than those who lived through it so the idea 'you weren't there what do you know' is often moot.

As I have said 37 years on and we still see punk having a massive influence on the cutting edge of every art music cinema and fashion innovation. There is nothing The Beatles have inlfuenced on that score for many years. They may have been big at the time but now they have no relevance and haven't ever to my life. They are just a pian in the arse at wedding parties. That is all they have ever been.

Cherrystone wrote:
Beatles, Led, Floyd.

+1

Eliza C wrote:

You are continuing to use the word punk completely out of context; as though it were a subsitute word for rebel. It isn't. It is much more sophisticated.
And I think comparing the early beatles songs which are childish ditties to what the Pistols were which was so much more than just the music is to fail to understand what punk is.
I lived through neither as I wasn't born. But my parents did and they would not consider The Beatles serious music next to The Stones or The Pistols or even Roxy Music and Bowie. They'd consider it commercial dross.

I didn't live through the last ice age either but it doesn't stop me having a more sophisticated understanding of what may have been happening re the climate than those who lived through it so the idea 'you weren't there what do you know' is often moot.

Yeah, Gary, she's a sophisticated punk. 

Andialu wrote:
Yeah, Gary, she's a sophisticated punk. 

Nope: punk is sophisticated concept. I wasn't there so I wasn't part of it but I understand it and it has permeated my consciousness in a way the beatles never could. The Beatles aren't sophisticated: hence their popularity; there is nothing TO attempt to understand unless we are thinking how clever it all is to make a drug reference in a nonsense lyric . But what is popular is not necessarily important.

Eliza C wrote:

Nope: punk is sophisticated concept. The Beatles aren't: hence their popularity. But what is popular is not neceesraily important.

Whatever. Watching people argue about music is fun. Just listen to what you like. Sophisticated, not sophisticated, who gives a fuck?

Andialu wrote:

Whatever. Watching people argue about music is fun. Just listen to what you like. Sophisticated, not sophisticated, who gives a fuck?

The Op

He asked for three bands and I am going to do my damnedest to ensure that The Beatles are not there because I don't think they are infleuntial on anything now. So won't be in future. Whereas I have proved the Pistols legacy to be long lasting and remaining relevant and radical.

All I have seen as examples are some faded dated looking album covers

I think the Beatles will be remembered like Grecaie Fields is. With fondness no doubt by a large amount of old people but having no direct bearing on modern culture and eventually forgotten by historians. The commercial elements of the music industry holding development back in favour of tried and trusted formulaic may still keep their infleunce going through getting MOR acts to cover their somgs but that is eventually a recipe for making them even less relevant to those creating new.

Eliza C wrote:

The Op

He asked for three bands and I am going to do my damnedest to ensure that The Beatles are not there because I don't think they are infleuntial on anything now. So won't be in future. Whereas I have proved the Pistols legacy to be long lasting and remaining relevant and radical.

All I have seen as examples are some faded dated looking album covers

I think the Beatles will be remembered like Grecaie Fields is. With fondness no doubt by a large amount of old people but having no direct bearing on modern culture and eventually forgotten by historians. The commercial elements of the music industry holding development back in favour of tried and trusted formulaic may still keep their infleunce going through getting MOR acts to cover their somgs but that is eventually a recipe for making them even less relevant to those creating new.

This is by far the most asinine thing I've seen written in any forum...... ever. Go back to whatever fur coated fantasy land you come from.

Andialu wrote:
This is by far the most asinine thing I've seen written in any forum...... ever. Go back to whatever fur coated fantasy land you come from.

Personal attack from your previously revealed prejudices against me. You have nothing to add to the debate.

I have cited many things on the previous page that show the continuing oinfluence of punk. I have been shown NO citations of legacy at a cutting edge in terms of culture from the Beatles. Not one example. The Beatles are not influential on fashion or art or cinema any more. And they only are in music at a very MOR level. If you have evidence to the contray let;'s see it. And I am not talking about popularity as I have already demonstrated why popularity in Art  doesn't make history books. Let's see their influence in fashion or avant garde music art or cinema now.

At least I can construct or defend an argument without resorting to personal attack

Eliza C wrote:

Personal attack from your previously revealed prejudices against me. You have nothing to add to the debate.

I have cited many things on the previous page that show the continuing oinfluence of punk. I have been shown NO citations of legacy at a cutting edge in terms of culture from the Beatles. Not one example. The Beatles are not influential on fashion or art or cinema any more. And they only are in music at a very MOR level. If you have evidence to the contray let;'s see it. And I am not talking about popularity. Let's see their infleunce in fashion or avant garde music art or cinema now.

Here's a crazy thought. They will both continue to influence pop culture for many years to come. Why does it have to be an either or proposition?

Andialu wrote:
Here's a crazy thought. They will both continue to influence pop culture for many years to come. Why does it have to be an either or proposition?

Because only three are allowed.

If it was twenty I wouldn't be arguing

And we need when considering the historical importance of any artistic phenomenon to see past commercial impact or popularity. Those factors do not necessarily influence culture long term. Pop culture is obviously transient by nature- it relies on dismissing the old and selling the new. So punk remaining radical 38 years later in a variety of other cultural manifestations is I would suggest a mark of historical longevity.

Eliza C wrote:
Show me something from the catwalks or movies or from other cultures showing the Beatles influence now as I have on the last page. You will struggle. You'd do it; but it won't be at the cutting edge. Yes I hear The Beatles every week in the pub and the supermarket and old people dancing at weddings. But whenever I go to a n avant garde fashion or music event or indie cinema or theatre or Art exhibition I am going to hear and see the legacy of The Sex Pistols. Even in many ports here the fashion make up and styling owes an immense amount to punk.

I do know that the Beatles certainly did influence the fashion culture and photography as well.   Beatle boots, navy style pea-coats, granny glasses, feathers, black T shirts and even Ringo's rings!  Also the art and photography on their albums was outstanding ... and influential.  The Beatles were avant garde for their time, and I'm sure that the Sex Pistols got much of their influence from the Beatles, The Stones, AND the Who!  Ozzy Osbourne and Gene Simmons have mentioned the Beatles as a major influence as to why they decided to pursue rock and roll themselves.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I do know that the Beatles certainly did influence the fashion culture and photography as well.   Beatle boots, navy style pea-coats, granny glasses, feathers, black T shirts and even Ringo's rings!  Also the art and photography on their albums was outstanding ... and influential.  The Beatles were avant garde for their time, and I'm sure that the Sex Pistols got much of their influence from the Beatles, The Stones, AND the Who!  Ozzy Osbourne and Gene Simmons have mentioned the Beatles as a major influence as to why they decided to pursue rock and roll themselves.

I agree fully patrick

"DID"

Whereas the Sex Pistols "DO" continue to as is evident on the catwalks right now.

Past tense and present tense is exactly the point I am making.
Add to this that Westwood and the Pistols were innovators in the bricolage style and the artistic contruct remains innovative (hence for example steampunk). The Beatles by contrast were just popularising the existing beat style.

So I am not saying the Beatles weren't important at the time - I just don't think they have much relevance today in comparison say to the Sex Pistols or even Bauhaus and Bowie etc.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Lennon listened to a lot of Chuck Berry, so maybe that's who he felt created it?  Ike Turner certainly is in there too.

Legacys 7 wrote:
It was pointed out shortly after Ike's death that he started Rock n roll. Not surprising, seeing that it's roots come from Blues and he was a Blues player.

Ike Turner was an amazing musician!  He also knew great talent when he heard it.  However, we all know what Ike "will" be remembered for.   Tina Turner will be remembered more so than him for the music.

Eliza C wrote:
I agree fully patrick

"DID"

Whereas the Sex Pistols "DO" continue to as is evident on the catwalks right now.

Past tense and prsent tense is exactly the point I am making.
Add to this that Westwood and the Pistols were innovators in the bricolage style and the artistic contruct remains innovative (hence for example steampunk). The Beatles by contrast were just popularising the existing beat style.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39YUXIKrOFk

Catwalk? WTF are you talking about? Punk's enduring legacy is fur wearing freaks sashaying down a catwalk? No, it's about music.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Chuck Berry, all the guys that were at Sun, Buddy Holly, Ike, and a bunch of other people that most people have never heard of. But Chuck, Buddy, Bill Haley, Ike, Little Richard and that bunch at Sun (which includes Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbinson, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash, Howlin' Wolf) - my guess is they go down in history as the groups and individuals that created rock 'n' roll - and the Beatles go down as the group that most transformed it.

And I love most of the music that came out of Sun studio.   Now that is something I can agree with! 

Eliza C wrote:
I agree fully patrick

"DID"

Whereas the Sex Pistols "DO" continue to as is evident on the catwalks right now.

Past tense and present tense is exactly the point I am making.
Add to this that Westwood and the Pistols were innovators in the bricolage style and the artistic contruct remains innovative (hence for example steampunk). The Beatles by contrast were just popularising the existing beat style.

So I am not saying the Beatles weren't important at the time - I just don't think they have much relevance today in comparison say to the Sex Pistols or even Bauhaus and Bowie etc.

Most of what the Beatles made "cool" is mainstream now.  If "puck" is fur, then it's anti mainstream and not cool to environmentalists.  What else?  Torn up jeans and t-shirts?  I wear those today!  I know the Beatles wore fur at some point too.  I don't wear fur ... never have!  No big deal.  I see Beatle influence in clothing stores today.

Andialu wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39YUXIKrOFk

Catwalk? WTF are you talking about? Punk's enduring legacy is fur wearing freaks sashaying down a catwalk? No, it's about music.

A lot of what you see on the catwalks might seem new and exciting, but who wears that shit in mainstream everyday life?  Heck!  Hippie clothing is more comfortable!   

Andialu wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39YUXIKrOFk

Catwalk? WTF are you talking about? Punks enduring legacy is fur wearing freaks sashaying down a cat walk? No, it's about music.

Yes well as long as you continue to call someone with a purple mohican a freak that shows it's legacy is about far more than the music and is still working.

And whether you like fashion or not, it is the industry that pays many of us here. And in the UK at its peak is the undisputed queen of fashion Vivienne Westwood . The fairy godmother of punk.

I can't help you if you don't appreciate fashion and how music can influence it and vice versa. Punk has permeated every contemporary cultural avenue from contemporary dance to theatre to art, fashion and cinema. Take a look at some MUA's ports here if you doubt it. The whole point of punk is it was about everything and the music didn't particularly matter. If you don't get and think it's about the music then you would be mistaken.