Biggest Debate in Rock N Roll History ?

Rjinn · 07-28-2012, 09:04 AM

In response to the quote about Jesus.

He was probably questioned a lot by Catholics who found it offensive to have that said. Then downplaying statements to a smaller niche in comparison or insinuating they were godly, which became very subjectively intended. I understand it was a figure of how popular they were, but the remark was stupid and unthoughtful. Someone who was treasured as human faith and divine hope comparing to someone who made popular music. It is understandable how others took it wrong. The huge resonation was pretentious either way, and treads over sensitive means.

Holerbot6000 · 07-28-2012, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjinnx

In response to the quote about Jesus.

I think it was a typically American knee-jerk reaction to a statement that was taken totally out of context. That's what we DO. Remember too that it was radio stations and other media outlets that whipped up the frenzy in the first place and there was very much a sentiment at the time that Rock & Roll was the devil's music and was leading the nations teens into a world of unbridled sin and temptation, so this was an opportunity to try and re-gain control.

I also think calling Lennon pretentious for saying that is a little unfair. I think he was trying to engage in some genuine discourse there, trying to put their insane, rabid popularity into some kind of context. If he was guilty of anything it was in being so naive as to think he could engage the media in a discourse in the first place. The Beatles definitely had their moments of pretentiousness and pomposity - they were the first band to be that popular and it was bound to go to their heads - but I'm not sure this was one of them.

Neapolitan · 07-29-2012, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holerbot6000

I also think calling Lennon pretentious for saying that is a little unfair. I think he was trying to engage in some genuine discourse there, trying to put their insane, rabid popularity into some kind of context. If he was guilty of anything it was in being so naive as to think he could engage the media in a discourse in the first place. The Beatles definitely had their moments of pretentiousness and pomposity - they were the first band to be that popular and it was bound to go to their heads - but I'm not sure this was one of them.

Well, before The Beatles were popular Elvis was and before Elvis it was the crooners like Bing Crosby and Sinatra. When they start keeping charts, Les Paul and Mary Ford were one of the most popular acts for their time - they had forty Top 40 hits, and slightly before them Louis Jordan was known as "The King of the Jukebox."

The Beatles were just the biggest act of their day. The pretentiousness and pomposity comes in when they act like they were the first band to make good music, or all other bands after them wanted to be them but weren't good enough.

Rjinn · 07-29-2012, 01:06 AM

I'm not questioning him trying to put it in context, but how he chose to. That's
what I meant by saying it was reckless,
no matter how much controversy it got. He could of easily put it in a different context. The devil's work, while I think is overblown as well didn't really have the same grandiosity resonating compared
to the aforementioned remark. As sensitive towards religious people who invested. The rock and roll statement was more just a functional one. Still silly though.

I'm not a Jesus person or anything, but I still believe it was pretentious.

Holerbot6000 · 07-29-2012, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Well, before The Beatles were popular Elvis was and before Elvis it was the crooners like Bing Crosby and Sinatra. When they start keeping charts, Les Paul and Mary Ford were one of the most popular acts for their time - they had forty Top 40 hits, and slightly before them Louis Jordan was known as "The King of the Jukebox."

The Beatles were way bigger than any of the excellent bands and performers you mention. They really were the first worldwide pop culture phenomenon. It was completely insane and the modern world had seen nothing like it before. They conquered the whole damn planet in just a few short years. I hate to say you had to be there, but you had to be there.

Even today, it's pretty rare for a band or performer to have such worldwide appeal and impact. Abba, U2, Michael Jackson, Madonna maybe - it's a pretty elite club and the Beatles were the first to run that particular gauntlet. They themselves were clearly a bit overcome and bewildered by it all, which is what spurred the Jesus comment in the first place, pretentious or not. John Lennon also said that they were just a rock&roll band who made it very, very big.

I'm starting to sound like the Beatles apologist here and I didn't mean to do that. Fundamentally, I don't care if other people don't like the Beatles. To each their own. I also didn't mean to go off topic though either. Sorry about that.

**Janszoon** · 07-29-2012, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holerbot6000

The Beatles were way bigger than any of the excellent bands and performers you mention. They really were the first worldwide pop culture phenomenon. It was completely insane and the modern world had seen nothing like it before. They conquered the whole damn planet in just a few short years. I hate to say you had to be there, but you had to be there.

Even today, it's pretty rare for a band or performer to have such worldwide appeal and impact. Abba, U2, Michael Jackson, Madonna maybe - it's a pretty elite club and the Beatles were the first to run that particular gauntlet. They themselves were clearly a bit overcome and bewildered by it all, which is what spurred the Jesus comment in the first place, pretentious or not. John Lennon also said that they were just a rock&roll band who made it very, very big.

I'm starting to sound like the Beatles apologist here and I didn't mean to do that. Fundamentally, I don't care if other people don't like the Beatles. To each their own. I also didn't mean to go off topic though either. Sorry about that.

I always wonder how "world wide" the Beatles phenomenon really was. Obviously they were huge in Europe, the US and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan (I think), but were they big in Latin America? Africa? Asia? I don't really know, but I suspect Michael Jackson was probably a bigger phenomenon than they were in terms of truly being world wide.

Holerbot6000 · 07-29-2012, 10:00 AM

You guys are hardcore. I surrender!! ^_^

NEWGUY562 · 07-29-2012, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I always wonder how "world wide" the Beatles phenomenon really was. Obviously they were huge in Europe, the US and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan (I think), but were they big in Latin America? Africa? Asia? I don't really know, but I suspect Michael Jackson was probably a bigger phenomenon than they were in terms of truly being world wide.

I think Michael Jackson probably was the hugest star internationally of course.. I wonder why though? What made his music transcend all around the world?...and The Beatles were huge in japan

Rjinn · 07-29-2012, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holerbot6000

You guys are hardcore. I surrender!! ^_^

Actually no you made a lot of strong points. You're pretty good at debating. *thumbs up*

Urban Hat€monger ? · 07-29-2012, 10:47 AM

If you look at the biggest selling albums of all time the Beatles don't even show up with Sgt Pepper until No 15. Alanis Morrissette, Shania Twain & Backstreet Boys all sold more.

Puts The Beatles into perspective when you look at it like that.

07-28-2012, 09:04 AM	#141 (permalink)
Rjinn The Aerosol in your Soul Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: New South Wales, Australia Posts: 1,546	In response to the quote about Jesus. He was probably questioned a lot by Catholics who found it offensive to have that said. Then downplaying statements to a smaller niche in comparison or insinuating they were godly, which became very subjectively intended. I understand it was a figure of how popular they were, but the remark was stupid and unthoughtful. Someone who was treasured as human faith and divine hope comparing to someone who made popular music. It is understandable how others took it wrong. The huge resonation was pretentious either way, and treads over sensitive means. __________________ last.fm Last edited by Rjinn; 07-28-2012 at 09:48 AM.

07-29-2012, 01:06 AM	#144 (permalink)
Rjinn The Aerosol in your Soul Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: New South Wales, Australia Posts: 1,546	I'm not questioning him trying to put it in context, but how he chose to. That's what I meant by saying it was reckless, no matter how much controversy it got. He could of easily put it in a different context. The devil's work, while I think is overblown as well didn't really have the same grandiosity resonating compared to the aforementioned remark. As sensitive towards religious people who invested. The rock and roll statement was more just a functional one. Still silly though. I'm not a Jesus person or anything, but I still believe it was pretentious. __________________ last.fm

07-29-2012, 10:47 AM	#150 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	If you look at the biggest selling albums of all time the Beatles don't even show up with Sgt Pepper until No 15. Alanis Morrissette, Shania Twain & Backstreet Boys all sold more. Puts The Beatles into perspective when you look at it like that. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

07-29-2012, 10:00 AM	#147 (permalink)
Holerbot6000 Music Mutant Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: near a record store Posts: 327	You guys are hardcore. I surrender!! ^_^