Eliza C wrote:
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.

Honestly, I GET that you love Punk music and the style.  I do think the music IS important, and I can't easily remember songs or lyrics from punk bands as I do other rock bands.  I think it's funny that you are trying to "dis" the Beatles as not relevant to punk music and style because they are the first to play all night long, doing crazy things like wearing a toilet seat on stage, getting into fights, drinking and smoking ... all that while performing on stage in dingy clubs of Hamburg and Liverpool.  The Beatles also had their anti fans who held record burning events in protest of the Beatles "influence" on the younger generation.  I think the Rolling Stones were considered more of the bad boys, but everyone has their haters.

I'm not a hater, I'm a lover, however I'm brain dead as to puck music's influence.  Please tell me about some of the songs that will be long remembered.  I'm serious!  It's NOT just about the style or fashion.  Even the fashion trend setter herself, Madonna has music!  She's not punk though, I'm sure Madonna has a better chance at a music legacy than the Sex Pistols.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Honestly, I GET that you love Punk music and the style.  I do think the music IS important, and I can't easily remember songs or lyrics from punk bands as I do other rock bands.  I think it's funny that you are trying to "dis" the Beatles as not relevant to punk music and style because they are the first to play all night long, doing crazy things like wearing a toilet seat on stage, getting into fights, drinking and smoking ... all that while performing on stage in dingy clubs of Hamburg and Liverpool.  The Beatles also had their anti fans who held record burning events in protest of the Beatles "influence" on the younger generation.  I think the Rolling Stones were considered more of the bad boys, but everyone has their haters.

I'm not a hater, I'm a lover, however I'm brain dead as to puck music's influence.  Please tell me about some of the songs that will be long remembered.  I'm serious!  It's NOT just about the style or fashion.  Even the fashion trend setter herself, Madonna has music!  She's not punk though, I'm sure Madonna has a better chance at a music legacy than the Sex Pistols.

But, but, mohawk, fur, catwalk........ What is this "music" thing you speak of?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
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.

Well let's see. I see a lot of people CLAIM to be environmentalists but I work with actual professionals. I don't know any genuine environmental scientist who is anti fur. We are all pretty much anti synethetics and oil andplastic and pro sustainable animal resources. My professional field is the environment I don't do it as a protest in my spare time. Know what NERC is? Now I could take time out here to post images of dozens of environmental scientists and conservationists in fur but that would be simply derailng the thread just to defend myself against personal comments so if you doubt it pm me. And as you said the Beatles wore fur anyway and I think Yoko has the largest private collection of furs in existence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar … cream.html

And Lennon of course wore them too as did McCartney while in The Beatles.

The fur has nothing to do with the image I posted as such - it was the purple mohican and the bricolage. Bricolage is the assemby of dischordant parts to create a dynamic new aesthetic. The surrealists did it. And Fendi and a hundred other designers are currently doing it in their collections giving more than just a nod to punk.

Now if you are happy in t shirts and jeans that's fine but neither think they are environmentally freindly (google Aral sea and cotton) or 'in' fashion. YES you see stuff in  stores for the masses today that the Beatles wear - though I don't see nehru jackets and flares. But that is NOT cutting edge fashion. The Beatkles have no current infleunce there. And I think you will find in stores that cater for a younger or more sophisticated clientelle you will see those catwalk designs you think are ridiculous from last year's collections. Just because you don't shop in them don't imagine others are as oblivious too it. Just as well really or many of us on MM wouldn't have a job

Andialu wrote:

But, but, mohawk, fur, catwalk........ What is this "music" thing you speak of?

The style on the catwalk image hasd a purple mohican and I think Justin made a comment about his nephew's purple mohican hence it was relevant.

Punk was about more than the music. It was about the Art and Fashion too. It was anti the music business and anti -music in a smilar way to Dadaism was anti art.

But if you doubt the infleunce of the Sex Pistols in modern music I have also given some cites - Pussy Riot in Russia, the legacy according to Curt Cobain, and the use of The Dickies in Kick Ass for example as evidence of punk still being relevant in a way the Beatles are not. That is without going into the thousands of contemporary bands that would see themselves as punk or  infleunced by punk all over the world that still make up the underground scene.

BlueMoonPics wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatle … ar_culture

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

Well I am not going to place too much emphasis on wikipedia but since you cited it I will give it a brief look. It would appear however unless you are intentially attempting to back my argument I don't know what point you are making.

A cursory insepction of the Beatles cultural infleunce reveals nothing in fashion since the late sixties and nothing in music since Oasis in the late 80's: who I'd regard as reactionary old guard in terms of modern independent music. Regressionist. Nothing new

Whereas a section from the Pistols which is by no means comprehensive reveals:

"Along with their abundant musical influence, the Sex Pistols' cultural reverberations are evident elsewhere. Jamie Reid's work for the band is regarded as among the most important graphic design of the 1970s and still impacts the field in the 21st century.[208] By the age of twenty-one, Sid Vicious was already a "t-shirt-selling icon".[209] While the manner of his death signified for many the inevitable failure of punk's social ambitions, it cemented his image as an archetype of doomed youth.[210] British punk fashion, still widely influential, is now customarily credited to Westwood and McLaren; as Johnny Rotten, Lydon had a lasting effect as well, especially through his bricolage approach to personal style: he "would wear a velvet collared drape jacket (ted) festooned with safety pins (Jackie Curtis through the New York punk scene), massive pin-stripe pegs (modernist), a pin-collar Wemblex (mod) customised into an Anarchy shirt (punk) and brothel creepers (ted)."[211] Christopher Nolan, director of the Batman movie The Dark Knight, has said that Rotten inspired the characterization of The Joker, played by Heath Ledger. According to Nolan, "We very much took the view in looking at the character of the Joker that what's strong about him is this idea of anarchy. This commitment to anarchy, this commitment to chaos."[212] Ledger's costar Christian Bale has claimed that Ledger drew inspiration from watching tapes of Vicious"

Now let me be clear here.
I am talking about how the Sex Pistols continue to impact modern cultural incarnations in a way that the Beatles do not. I have not said they didn't at the time. And their influence probably lasted for a while. But it isn't as radically affecting contemporary culture as the Pistols continue to.

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.

Eliza C wrote:
Those two reasons alone should be enough to make the difference clear.

What's clear is that we have a difference of opinion that apparently can't be thrashed to death enough times without resolution.

I'm in a professional setting. I'm not on catwalks. I look around and I see the influence of the late 60's and early 70's all over. I walk down the streets, and I see it all over. I walk through the high school and college, and I'll see the influence of punk, but as a transient thing, until they settle down to shirts (sometimes white, sometimes colorful) and ties at the workplace until jeans Friday. Another 60's/70's influence.

I guess we live in different environments. That again, apparently, can't be overstated.

Eliza C wrote:

Well I am not going to place too much emphasis on wikipedia but since you cited it unless you are intentially attempting to back my argument I don't know why.

A cursory insepction of the Beatles cultural infleunce reveals nothing in fashion since the late sixties and nothing in music since Oasis in the late 80's: who I'd regard as reactionary old guard in terms of modern independent music. Regressionist. Nothing new

Whereas a section from the Pistols which is by no means comprehensive reveals:

"Along with their abundant musical influence, the Sex Pistols' cultural reverberations are evident elsewhere. Jamie Reid's work for the band is regarded as among the most important graphic design of the 1970s and still impacts the field in the 21st century.[208] By the age of twenty-one, Sid Vicious was already a "t-shirt-selling icon".[209] While the manner of his death signified for many the inevitable failure of punk's social ambitions, it cemented his image as an archetype of doomed youth.[210] British punk fashion, still widely influential, is now customarily credited to Westwood and McLaren; as Johnny Rotten, Lydon had a lasting effect as well, especially through his bricolage approach to personal style: he "would wear a velvet collared drape jacket (ted) festooned with safety pins (Jackie Curtis through the New York punk scene), massive pin-stripe pegs (modernist), a pin-collar Wemblex (mod) customised into an Anarchy shirt (punk) and brothel creepers (ted)."[211] Christopher Nolan, director of the Batman movie The Dark Knight, has said that Rotten inspired the characterization of The Joker, played by Heath Ledger. According to Nolan, "We very much took the view in looking at the character of the Joker that what's strong about him is this idea of anarchy. This commitment to anarchy, this commitment to chaos."[212] Ledger's costar Christian Bale has claimed that Ledger drew inspiration from watching tapes of Vicious"

Beatles: Some vapid fashion, mostly music
Sex Pistols: Some music, mostly vapid fashion

Justin wrote:

What's clear is that we have a difference of opinion that apparently can't be thrashed to death enough times without resolution.

I'm in a professional setting. I'm not on catwalks. I look around and I see the influence of the late 60's and early 70's all over. I walk down the streets, and I see it all over. I walk through the high school and college, and I'll see the influence of punk, but as a transient thing, until they settle down to shirts (sometimes white, sometimes colorful) and ties at the workplace until jeans Friday. Another 60's/70's influence.

I guess we live in different environments. That again, apparently, can't be overstated.

WHOAH!!!
You are comparing the whole of the sixties and seventies to the Sex Pistols?


I want to see the BEATLES influence in the contemporary cultural landscape ie the one that is being built NOW. Because I see the Pistols in a lot of things and have cited them. Not ONE thing being done now in CONTEMPORARY art or fashion or architecture or cinema has been cited as yet re the Beatles. We are still stuck with chelsea boots and jeans. And the former have been going since 18th century huighwaymen and the latter since cowboys so don't pretend the Beatles invented them!!! Of course we hear the Beatles in elevator music but sorry that's the graveyard of cultural manifestation not an indication of it's continuing infleunce.

Eliza C wrote:
...I am going to do my damnedest to ensure that The Beatles are not there...

Well... I don't think you're the final arbiter of that. For those who put the Beatles in, I don't see where you've convinced them to edit them out.

Eliza C wrote:

The style on the catwalk image hasd a purple mohican and I think Justin made a comment about his nephew's purple mohican hence it was relevant.

Punk was about more than the music. It was about the Art and Fashion too. It was anti the music business and anti -music in a smilar way to Dadaism was anti art.

But if you doubt the infleunce of the Sex Pistols in modern music I have also given some cites - Pussy Riot in Russia, the legacy according to Curt Cobain, and the use of The Dickies in Kick Ass for example as evidence of punk still being relevant in a way the Beatles are not. That is without going into the thousands of contemporary bands that would see themselves as punk or  infleunced by punk all over the world that still make up the underground scene.

At least spell his name correctly ... Kurt Cobain and Nirvana were a part of the grunge rock scene that sprang from Seattle Washington ... NOT punk, and NOT England.  I like grunge rock, and can picture Neil Young, Kurt Cobain, Pete Townsend and John Lennon all sharing the same stage jamming on loud guitars while John Entwistle and Keith Moon slam down a vicious rhythm section.  That would be one hella'va band by the way!

Eliza C wrote:
WHOAH!!!
You are comparing the whole of the sixties and seventies to the Sex Pistols?

Whoa  yourself. I have continually made reference to the late 60's and early 70's. I believe in one of my posts, I mentioned "a few years north and south of 1970." I have not mentioned "the whole of the sixties and seventies." That would be a dramatic misquote.

I have not compared anything to the Sex Pistols. In fact, I know very little about the Sex Pistols. I've heard the names "Sid Vicious" and "Johnny Rotten." I did not see "Sid and Nancy." I'm as unqualified to talk about them as someone who didn't live in 1971, telling me what it was like back then.

Eliza C wrote:
...I am going to do my damnedest to ensure that The Beatles are not there...

Justin wrote:
Well... I don't think you're the final arbiter of that. For those who put the Beatles in, I don't see where you've convinced them to edit them out.

Some people hide their head in the sand ... or just see what they want to see.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

At least spell his name correctly ... Kurt Cobain and Nirvana were a part of the grunge rock scene that sprang from Seattle Washington ... NOT punk, and NOT England.  I like grunge rock, and can picture Neil Young, Kurt Cobain, Pete Townsend and John Lennon all sharing the same stage jamming on loud guitars while John Entwistle and Keith Moon slam down a vicious rhythm section.  That would be one hella'va band by the way!

yes sorry for the typo.
But I was quoting KURT COBAIN. He credited the Sex Pistols as the greatest influence

Quote:
" I keep trying to get this story right chronologically and I just can't. My first exposure to punk rock came when Creem started covering the Sex Pistols' U.S. tour. I would read about them and just fantasize about how amazing it would be to hear their music and to be a part of it. But I was like 11 years old, and I couldn't possibly have followed them on the tour. The thought of just going to Seattle which was only 200 miles away was impossible. My parents took me to Seattle probably three times in my life, from what I can remember, and those were on family trips.

After that, I was always trying to find punk rock, but of course they didn't have it in our record shop in Aberdeen. The first punk rock I was able to buy was probably Devo and Oingo Boingo and stuff like that; that stuff finally leaked into Aberdeen many years after the fact.

Then, finally, in 1984 a friend of mine named Buzz Osborne [Melvins singer/guitarist] made me a couple of compilation tapes with Black Flag and Flipper everything, all the most popular punk rock bands, and I was completely blown away I'd finally found my calling. That very same day, I cut my hair short. I would lip-sync to those tapes I played them every day and it was the greatest thing. I'd already been playing guitar by then for a couple of years, and I was trying to play my own style of punk rock, or what I imagined that it was, I knew it was fast and had a lot of distortion. Punk expressed the way I felt socially and politically. There were so many things going on at once. It expressed the anger that I felt the alienation. It also helped open my eyes to what I didn't like about metal bands like Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin. While I really did enjoy and still do enjoy, some of the melodies those bands have written, I suddenly realized I didn't like their sexist attitudes-the way that they just wrote about their dicks and having sex. That stuff bored me."

He barely ever had an interview where he didn't cite the Pistols and named an album 'Nevermind' (as the Pistols wrote it) as a nod to them.


So sorry Kurt would have wanted to be with the Pistols not The Beatles etc.

Evidence Patrick; evidence.

Justin wrote:

Whoa  yourself. I have continually made reference to the late 60's and early 70's. I believe in one of my posts, I mentioned "a few years north and south of 1970." I have not mentioned "the whole of the sixties and seventies." That would be a dramatic misquote.

I have not compared anything to the Sex Pistols. In fact, I know very little about the Sex Pistols. I'm as unqualified to talk about them as someone who didn't live in 1971, telling me what it was like back then.

I see retro ... 60's 70's styles ... I see a new line going out with Marilyn Monroe's name attached to it.  Where is Johnny Rotton's line of clothing?

Eliza C wrote:
I want to see the BEATLES influence in the contemporary cultural landscape ie the one that is being built NOW. Because I see the Pistols in a lot of things and have cited them. Not ONE thing being done now in CONTEMPORARY art or fashion or architecture or cinema has been cited as yet re the Beatles. We are still stuck with chelsea boots and jeans. And the former have been going since 18th century huighwaymen and the latter since cowboys so don't pretend the Beatles invented them!!! Of course we hear the Beatles in elevator music but sorry that's the graveyard of cultural manifestation not an indication of it's continuing infleunce.

I'm not bothered by this because I don't get bothered by these forums, and even if I did, this thread has turned into self-satire now and is heavily populated by straw men.

Here's what I'm saying: There was a tectonic nudge, a sea change, a paradigm shift in society that occurred in the late 60's and early 70's in culture. That shift is felt to this day. It's seen in the years following, through disco, punk, grunge, rap, and hip-hop. There was a change in attitudes and approaches across the breadth of society. And rock and roll was at the center of that change, and an icon for it. And the Beatles were at the center of that rock and roll, and an icon for it.

Andialu wrote:
So is this thread about music or fashion?

It's apparently about volume.

Eliza C wrote:
yes sorry for the typo.
But I was quoting KURT COBAIN. He credited the Sex Pistols as the greatest influence

Quote:
" I keep trying to get this story right chronologically and I just can't. My first exposure to punk rock came when Creem started covering the Sex Pistols' U.S. tour. I would read about them and just fantasize about how amazing it would be to hear their music and to be a part of it. But I was like 11 years old, and I couldn't possibly have followed them on the tour. The thought of just going to Seattle which was only 200 miles away was impossible. My parents took me to Seattle probably three times in my life, from what I can remember, and those were on family trips.

After that, I was always trying to find punk rock, but of course they didn't have it in our record shop in Aberdeen. The first punk rock I was able to buy was probably Devo and Oingo Boingo and stuff like that; that stuff finally leaked into Aberdeen many years after the fact.

Then, finally, in 1984 a friend of mine named Buzz Osborne [Melvins singer/guitarist] made me a couple of compilation tapes with Black Flag and Flipper everything, all the most popular punk rock bands, and I was completely blown away I'd finally found my calling. That very same day, I cut my hair short. I would lip-sync to those tapes I played them every day and it was the greatest thing. I'd already been playing guitar by then for a couple of years, and I was trying to play my own style of punk rock, or what I imagined that it was, I knew it was fast and had a lot of distortion. Punk expressed the way I felt socially and politically. There were so many things going on at once. It expressed the anger that I felt the alienation. It also helped open my eyes to what I didn't like about metal bands like Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin. While I really did enjoy and still do enjoy, some of the melodies those bands have written, I suddenly realized I didn't like their sexist attitudes-the way that they just wrote about their dicks and having sex. That stuff bored me."

He barely ever had an interview where he didn't cite the Pistols and named an album 'Nevermind' (as the Pistols wrote it) as a nod to them.


So sorry Kurt would have wanted to be with the Pistols not The Beatles etc.

Evidence Patrick; evidence.

Well I'm glad that Kurt's band didn't sound like the Sex Pistols.  There is only enough room for one.  I doubt Kurt would have turned down the chance to jam with the said musicians I mentioned either.

" I like grunge rock, and can picture Neil Young, Kurt Cobain, Pete Townsend and John Lennon all sharing the same stage jamming on loud guitars while John Entwistle and Keith Moon slam down a vicious rhythm section.  That would be one hella'va band by the way!"     Grunge man!

Justin wrote:

I'm not bothered by this because I don't get bothered by these forums, and even if I did, this thread has turned into self-satire now and is heavily populated by straw men.

Here's what I'm saying: There was a tectonic nudge, a sea change, a paradigm shift in society that occurred in the late 60's and early 70's in culture. That shift is felt to this day. It's seen in the years following, through disco, punk, grunge, rap, and hip-hop. There was a change in attitudes and approaches across the breadth of society. And rock and roll was at the center of that change, and an icon for it. And the Beatles were at the center of that rock and roll, and an icon for it.

Well said!

Justin wrote:
Whoa  yourself. I have continually made reference to the late 60's and early 70's. I believe in one of my posts, I mentioned "a few years north and south of 1970." I have not mentioned "the whole of the sixties and seventies." That would be a dramatic misquote.

I have not compared anything to the Sex Pistols. In fact, I know very little about the Sex Pistols. I'm as unqualified to talk about them as someone who didn't live in 1971, telling me what it was like back then.

Why? I am qualified to tell you what it was like back in the ice age. Maybe I would not be able to tell you some interesting specifics, but I'd be able to explain what was happeneing during periods of rapid climate change whreas the person from the time would not.

You said you saw the influence of the 60s and 70s everywhere. I wouldn't dispute it. I have said throughout I think The early Stone remain relevant because they recorded many pieces that say something about the human condition that still have a resonance now. Whereas the Beatles often wrote idiosyncratic whimsy.
So you could lay Paint it Black down as a theme to a modern movie and it would sound radical. Lay down I am the Walrus it would sound dated and everyone would cringe.

So I was not criticising everything from the 60s and 70s or even a few years south or north of 1970. On the contrary. I was merely pointing out The Beatles were just a symptom not a catalyst of change in that period. The Sex Pistols were the nexus of punk and change at that time not a symptom of it.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Well I'm glad that Kurt's band didn't sound like the Sex Pistols.  There is only enough room for one.  I doubt Kurt would have turned down the chance to jam with the said musicians I mentioned either.

" I like grunge rock, and can picture Neil Young, Kurt Cobain, Pete Townsend and John Lennon all sharing the same stage jamming on loud guitars while John Entwistle and Keith Moon slam down a vicious rhythm section.  That would be one hella'va band by the way!"     Grunge man!

This in spite of the undisputed spokesperson of grunge cites the Sex Pistols as his major infleunce.
They may have made a good band. But they didn't exist.

Eliza C wrote:
So I was not criticising everything from the 60s and 70s or even a few years south or north of 1970.

Didn't say you were.
You said I compared the whole of the sixties and seventies to the Sex Pistols. I did no such thing.

Eliza C wrote:
Why? I am qualified to tell you what it was like back in the ice age. Maybe I would not be able to tell you some interesting specifics, but I'd be able to explain what was happeneing during periods of rapid climate change whreas the person from the time would not.

You said you saw the influence of the 60s and 70s everywhere. I wouldn't dispute it. I have said throughout I think The early Stone remain relevant because they recorded many pieces that say something about the human condition that still have a resonance now. Whereas the Beatles often wrote idiosyncratic whimsy.
So you could lay Paint it Black down as a theme to a modern movie and it would sound radical. Lay down I am the Walrus it would sound dated and everyone would cringe.

So I was not criticising everything from the 60s and 70s or even a few years south or north of 1970. On the contrary. I was merely pointing out The Beatles were just a symptom not a catalyst of change in that period. The Sex Pistols were the nexus of punk and change at that time not a symptom of it.

Yes, nexus, not Nexxus™.

Justin wrote:
There was a change in attitudes and approaches across the breadth of society. And rock and roll was at the center of that change, and an icon for it. And the Beatles were at the center of that rock and roll, and an icon for it.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Well said!

Thanks. Past any diversions and tangents, it's a pretty simple concept.

Justin wrote:

I'm not bothered by this because I don't get bothered by these forums, and even if I did, this thread has turned into self-satire now and is heavily populated by straw men.

Here's what I'm saying: There was a tectonic nudge, a sea change, a paradigm shift in society that occurred in the late 60's and early 70's in culture. That shift is felt to this day. It's seen in the years following, through disco, punk, grunge, rap, and hip-hop. There was a change in attitudes and approaches across the breadth of society. And rock and roll was at the center of that change, and an icon for it. And the Beatles were at the center of that rock and roll, and an icon for it.

At the time. Not any more.
They fizzled out at some point at the cutting edge of cultural manifestation.

Whereas the direct influence of the Pistols has not. The fact you are attempting to put The Beatles at the epicentre of a general rock and roll movement that changed society and continues may be valid in itself; but also invalid specifically in the context of qualifying The Beatles for entry into the three. I have given many concrete examples of how The Sex Pistols specifically continue to reverberate culturally in fashion music social upheaval etc.

Eliza C wrote:
...I am going to do my damnedest to ensure that The Beatles are not there...

Justin wrote:
Well... I don't think you're the final arbiter of that. For those who put the Beatles in, I don't see where you've convinced them to edit them out.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Some people hide their head in the sand ... or just see what they want to see.

I think you've hit the nail on the head Patrick.

I think all of us who believe that The Beatles will still be historically significant a few centuries from now will just have to "agree to disagree" with Eliza on this topic.  I understand that there are others who feel the same way as her, but all evidence is that her opinion is the minority one: for every person who feels that The Beatles are totally overrated, there are five who feel they aren't...and another two who feel that they are underrated (and I'm not just talking about in this forum thread, but in the real world in general)!

Eliza C wrote:
...I am going to do my damnedest to ensure that The Beatles are not there...

Eliza C wrote:
At the time. Not any more.
They fizzled out at some point at the cutting edge of cultural manifestation.

Whereas the direct influence of the Pistols has not. The fact you are attempting to put The Beatles at the epicentre of a general rock and roll movement that changed society and continues may be valid in itself; but also invalid specifically in the context of qualifying The Beatles for entry into the three. I have given many concrete examples of how The Sex Pistols specifically continue to reverberate culturally in fashion music social upheaval etc.

It seems like you are making an argument for what you want to be more than what reality is.

Justin wrote:
Here's what I'm saying: There was a tectonic nudge, a sea change, a paradigm shift in society that occurred in the late 60's and early 70's in culture. That shift is felt to this day. It's seen in the years following, through disco, punk, grunge, rap, and hip-hop. There was a change in attitudes and approaches across the breadth of society. And rock and roll was at the center of that change, and an icon for it. And the Beatles were at the center of that rock and roll, and an icon for it.

Eliza C wrote:
At the time. Not any more.
They fizzled out at some point at the cutting edge of cultural manifestation.

I'm sorry. I don't know how to respond to something that I few as fundamentally wrong at its basic presumption. Our last three Presidents have been a draft dodger, draft evader, and a black man. To reiterate, those Chinese mohawks were fomented in the Nixon visit to China in 1972. To say "not any more" is saying something that is palpably and demonstrably incorrect as I ponder it while sitting in my jeans in an office environment.

Justin wrote:

Didn't say you were.
You said I compared the whole of the sixties and seventies to the Sex Pistols. I did no such thing.

But the thread is about justifying why a BAND deserves to be in the history books. The Beatles weren't responsible for the general social change of the period. They may have had an influence true; but were also derivative of the beat scene and rock and roll that already existed; and do not have an infleunce on much new now. By contrast the Sex Pistols-Westwood-MClaren phenomena was the centre of the movement known as punk and was a radical infleunce at the time and continue to have a radical infleunce now as I have shown.

Eliza C wrote:

But the thread is about justifying why a BAND deserves to be in the history books. The Beatles weren't responsible for the general social change of the period. They may have had an influence true; but were also derivative of the beat scene and rock and roll that already existed; and do not have an infleunce on much new now. By contrast the Sex Pistols-Westwood-MClaren phenomena was the centre of the movement known as punk and was a radical infleunce at the time and continue to have a radical infleunce now as I have shown.

It's kind of a ridiculous argument to begin with. They are both going to be in the books for a long time. They were both and continue to be popular and influential. You just seem to have latched onto the most shallow manifestation of punk's legacy. :shrug:

Justin wrote:
You said I compared the whole of the sixties and seventies to the Sex Pistols. I did no such thing.

Eliza C wrote:
But the thread is about justifying why a BAND deserves to be in the history books.

Perhaps intransigence is exhibited in the unwillingness to agree with the most apparent statements.

I haven't seen a reason to change my mind. Certainly, the readers and contributors can decide for themselves.

Gary Melton wrote:
BTW...an interesting thing that I've noticed - if you search back through this thread to look at all the people here who included The Beatles in their top 3 - almost NO ONE listed The Beatles as number 2 or 3.  If they list them at all (and most people did) - they are almost always #1.

Well maybe the age and nationality has something to do with it. Lokhee is British though he is in America; I am British. Springheel doesn't include the Beatles though he likes British music.

Rolling Stone lists them as number one too; but they are a music magazine.
I said from the outset are we talking about history or music history? The two are different. The Sex Pistols directly affected and continue to affect the creation of new culture and the Beatles do not. Therefore their legacy to history will be more profound. But the Beatles were more popular, sold more records etc so in terms of history of popular music they probably would rate number one. If we were writing a book about the history of music in the 1930's and 40's we'd have Vera Lynn and Gracie Fields but if we were writing a book about history of the war years they may or may not get a fleeting mention.

Eliza C wrote:

Well maybe the age and nationality has something to do with it. Lokhee is British though he is in America; I am British. Springheel doesn't include the Beatles though he likes British music.

Rolling Stone lists them as number one too; but they are a music magazine.
I said from the outset are we talking about history or music history? The two are different. The Sex Pistols directly affected and continue to affect the creation of new culture and the Beatles do not. Therefore their legacy to history will be more profound. But the Beatles were more popular, sold more records etc so in terms of history of popular music they probably would rate number one. If we were writing a book about the history of music in the 1930's and 40's we'd have Vera Lynn and Gracie Fields but if we were writing a book about history of the war years they may or may not get a fleeting mention.

I'm just curious.  Do the British in general not like the Beatles?  What I'm asking is what is the British consensus in general?
I ask because I'm an American and may have a different point of view than the British on this subject.

Andialu wrote:

It's kind of a ridiculous argument to begin with. They are both going to be in the books for a long time. They were both and continue to be popular and influential. You just seem to have latched onto the most shallow manifestation of punk's legacy. :shrug:

Because I can't see how the Beatles are still influencing the creation of anything new in culture whereas I can see the Sex Pistols influence everywhere.

I do not think fashion shallow and I do not think Art shallow. I think popular music alone can be a shallow thing - as evident in early Beatles songs! I have attempted to explain bricolage for example and the use of that in creating a radical new aesthetic. That is not shallow ; it is particularly not shallow in the context of a forum that is loosely Art based , and we owe that to Westwood McClaren and the Sex Pistols. Just because you fail to understand or appreciate something does not make it shallow though I am not the only person who has pointed out the shallow quality of the early Beatles and have cited other commentators too.

Eliza C wrote:
Because I can't see how the Beatles are still influencing the creation of anything new in culture whereas I can see the Sex Pistols influence everywhere.

I do not think fashion shallow and I do not think Art shallow. I think popular music alone can be a shallow thing - as evident in early Beatles songs! I have attempted to explain bricolage for example and the use of that in creating a radical new aesthetic. That is not shallow ; it is particularly not shallow in the context of a forum that is loosely Art based , and we owe that to Westwood McClaren and the Sex Pistols. Just because you fail to understand or appreciate something does not make it shallow though I am not the only person who has pointed out the shallow quality of the early Beatles and have cited other commentators too.

That's your problem. You're looking, not listening.

Yeah, not shallow, AT ALL.

BlueMoonPics wrote:

I'm just curious.  Do the British in general not like the Beatles?  What I'm asking is what is the British consensus in general?
I ask because I'm an American and may have a different point of view than the British on this subject.

I don't know anybody in the UK that particularly likes them. A cursory glance at my facebook friends reveal mainly Amercians that have ticked like yet I have many more British friends. Just among my lab colleagues of 20 or so I think there is one who likes the Beatles. 7 of us like Bauhaus for example by contrast and all of us have some Pistols in our collections.

Eliza C wrote:

But the thread is about justifying why a BAND deserves to be in the history books. The Beatles weren't responsible for the general social change of the period. They may have had an influence true; but were also derivative of the beat scene and rock and roll that already existed; and do not have an infleunce on much new now. By contrast the Sex Pistols-Westwood-MClaren phenomena was the centre of the movement known as punk and was a radical infleunce at the time and continue to have a radical infleunce now as I have shown.

Actually Eliza, I think you're the one who is totally missing the point of this thread.  I asked what three bands from the [2nd half of the] 20th century do you think will be in history books 500 years from now...I did NOT ask - which bands from the 20th century have changed our culture the most.

What I'm mostly talking about is which bands will prove to be the most "timeless" and thus still be talked about hundreds of years from now.

Here's something of an example of what I'm talking about.  Two movies made in 1939: Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz are as entertaining today as they were almost 75 years ago.  Hundreds of other films were made that same year that didn't hold up well for even 10 years, but people will still be enjoying these 2 films 200 years from now.  These 2 movies didn't really change the world - they just captured universal (and timeless) ideas and emotions, and they did it really well.

I think The Beatles music did the same kind of thing - it did a great job of capturing universal (and timeless) ideas and emotions.

[And just like with The Beatles - some people will say that they just don't "get" those 2 movies...but a large majority of people would agree with me that they are "timeless".]