Quote:
Originally Posted by NYSPORTSFAN
Elvis and Chuck Berry were recording music when the Beatles were around weren't they? The Beatles weren't recording music in the 70's so your logic has no grounds.
|
Every member of the Beatles released music in the 70s. And none of it was music that had adapted well to the new era.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYSPORTSFAN
By your logic because the Beatles were recording later than Elvis or Chuck Berry or after the birth of rock and roll the Beatles couldn't surpass them. Please give me a break.
|
In what way is that "by my logic"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYSPORTSFAN
You can't dismiss the fact the Beatles had a long string of geat albums in which you could basically put anything on vinyl ranging from world music, avant garde, classical and anything else this was unheard of by previous standards of 50's rock and roll. They could have stayed the course and keep writing songs like "I Want To Hold Your Hand" but they progressed into something entirely different. Of course they surpassed their mentors in many ways but I wouldn't say in every facet though. The string of albums of Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Peppers, The White Album and Abbey Road not only marks a clear progression from what they were influenced they in turned influenced thousands of musicians, songwriters and music producers.
|
I don't personally consider a sequence consisting of one weak album, two good albums, one weak album and one good album "a long string of great albums". But, hey, that's just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYSPORTSFAN
Neither Elvis and Chuck Berry had an album run like the Beatles and something that IMO is something you can't dismiss easily.
|
Once again, the game was different in the 50s. Artists and labels didn't think in terms of LPs so that comparison makes no sense.