Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyo
|
LOL. I love the "scientific evidence to prove it."
As if science is any guide to musical quality, still less cultural importance.
The scientist in question does make some good points (the science itself seems to be sound), eg about the "aggressiveness" that was a hallmark of the Stones, Kinks, Who, etc, but not generally of the Beatles. It's true that the genre we call "Rock" - which included true innovation - was developed by those post-Beatles bands. The Beatles can be seen as the last of the "showbiz rock'n'rollers", not the first "Rock band". You only have to look at old film of the Beatles in suits bowing to audiences, and compare with the Stones of the same period (64-66), in their casual gear and untidy hair, unsmiling, to see the real cultural change the latter represented.
All that's true, but doesn't detract from the power of the Beatles as
songwriters at the very least. They may have been the last of the "showbiz rock'n'rollers" (remember the 1962 professional A&R man's observation that "guitar bands are on the way out") - but they brought together
every pop genre that had gone before them and mixed it into one body of work. Showbiz rock'n'roll was going out on a high! Plus (with George Martin) they were at the forefront of advances in recording techniques which had enormous impact on all who came after - the psychedelic bands, and the prog rockers. IOW, their influence spread in ways too subtle to appear in the prof's analyses. No one who followed them was untouched by them.
IOW, it depends on what aspects of the Beatles you're looking at. To say they are "over-rated" is quite valid, but only when looking at one aspect of their work, and (arguably) making false comparisons.
The whole article -
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.o...ent/2/5/150081 - is worth reading, even if the conclusions are arguably exaggerated:
"Those who wish to make claims about how and when popular music changed can no longer appeal to anecdote, connoisseurship and theory unadorned by data."
Oh, can't we?? Just try and stop us!
Seriously, such data is not to be sniffed at, and I think the more one really knows about pop history - and the less biased one tried to be - the more their conclusions support that knowledge. Much of what they found makes perfect sense to me at least, it's not surprising at all. (I'll admit some of the more arcane jargon went right over my head.)
When assessing the Beatles in particular
, an element of baby boomer nostalgia often creeps in. But it does seem that plenty of the younger generation(s) also find something in the Beatles' music beyond what the scientific analysis identifies, and which continues to place them well above their contemporaries.