That first point is the exact reason I don't really give them the time of day, seems like it's accepted as actual fact on something that is completely opinion based. My reaction is always to go the opposite way with the Beatles.there are all of the top of my head:
1. it means music to some maybe, but it doesn't to me. this just aligns with the view that everyone should just accept that they are the best and that they are 'music'. they aren't, they're a band. there are different types of music, even around that time, which does not involved bands.
2. yeah, that would make sense - they prob are the first band like that (that i am aware of)
3. wasn't a lot of that big in the US at the time anyhow?
4. a lot of were techniques already being used, by Terry Riley (who worked with them ) and Le Monte Young
I'm obviously not saying they are bad or anything, but it just seems to be a default answer for a lot of people and if anyone disagrees you just get a sneer by a musical expert who has all the LP's and has played in a pub band a few times.
That first point is the exact reason I don't really give them the time of day, seems like it's accepted as actual fact on something that is completely opinion based. My reaction is always to go the opposite way with the Beatles.
You say that - but a few people in here seem to be annoyed just because of their perceived stature and haven't even listened to them because of thisYep, it's just very tedious and boring, being anti it is just a natural reaction. people should be able to think for themselves
You say that - but a few people in here seem to be annoyed just because of their perceived stature and haven't even listened to them because of this
there are all of the top of my head:
1. it means music to some maybe, but it doesn't to me. this just aligns with the view that everyone should just accept that they are the best and that they are 'music'. they aren't, they're a band. there are different types of music, even around that time, which does not involved bands.
2. yeah, that would make sense - they prob are the first band like that (that i am aware of)
3. wasn't a lot of that big in the US at the time anyhow?
4. a lot of were techniques already being used, by Terry Riley (who worked with them ) and Le Monte Young
I'm obviously not saying they are bad or anything, but it just seems to be a default answer for a lot of people and if anyone disagrees you just get a sneer by a musical expert who has all the LP's and has played in a pub band a few times.
Not sure who’s dissing people who dont think they are the best band, and its odd that it would go in that direction so quickly!
Everyone has their own opinion and can voice it, you must have encountered some rabid Beatles fans!!
Im only basing it on what ive seen and heard, cant play a tune and would never sneer at you for disagreeing x
There is no such thing as a best band ever anyway as music is subjective.That's from years of people pummelling that 'fact' into people, that's not surprising
I genuinely can't see why they are the best band though? I have listened to most of their albums, i think, at least once and they never really did much for me other than the odd song
I'm not an expert of 60's rock, but Beach Boys, Velvet Underground, Rolling Stones put out a lot of albums in a short space of time in the 1960's so maybe that was the done thing back then?
There is no such thing as a best band ever anyway as music is subjective.
sorry, i thought I put that I obviously didn't mean you personally!
try living in the UK, by the age of 2 you are told that The Beatles won WWII single-handedly lol