You seem to be projecting a lot of odd things onto my posts that I haven't actually said. Very odd. It's also kind of odd that you're trying to "prove" your case with a non-functioning link. Strange but sort of fitting.

I don't think he was trying to say the Beatles weren't pop, he was trying to say they weren't merely your average, typical pop band. They were at the top of the rock/pop world in terms of creativity and musical composition, I don't think there is any question about that.

There's really no point in comparing the Beatles to sun ra, they were completely different breeds. And I don't think NYSPORTSFAN ever claimed the Beatles were as experimental as someone like sun ra.

Janszoon said something about people thinking the Beatles were some kind of magical beings, and their music may have been praised by certain musicologists, but they laughed at any praise of the kind. Sun Ra is the one who claimed he was from sort of angel race that originated on mars rather than earth :laughing:

Were they? I don't know. It's impossible to discuss them in any sort of reasonable way because of all the goalpost shifting and definition changing that goes on when it comes to the Beatles.

I think both he and now you are completely missing the point of the comparison.

I'd say they certainly were. Influence is one thing that nobody can question. I think you may be a little bitter because some people think they're so great and they overshadow a band like The Beach Boys, whom you prefer. Maybe not, just a theory.

I don't think anyone here is being unreasonable about them, Other than expressing feelings and ideas that you may not agree with.

it's so passe analysing the Beatles

can't we analyse Herman's Hermits, instead?

they were clearly superior

Obviously.

Another thing about the sun ra ordeal, What was the point of the comparison? Sun ra was doing stuff that was much more experimental than the Beatles at the same time sgt peppers came out, is that point? If so, then so what? You were the guy who said that superior technical ability didn't equal better music, so what difference does it make if sun ra was more experimental, other than just trying to prove a point?

Elvis was backed by Scotty Moore on guitar and Bill Black on bass. Chuck Berry was backed by Willie Dixon on bass and Johnnie Johnson on piano. All legends in their own right.

Scotty Moore His style is close to other guitar players at the time that did fingerpicking, and he is modest when talking about his playing ability. Scotty Moore got paid up front for the Sun Sessions and didn't receive any royalities for his part on those recordings, not even a dime. And it goes without saying how much money Elvis made.

If you ask people to recognize how revolutionary The Beatles were, then the same thing should be pointed out about Elvis and even taking note of the talent of his backup band of Scotty Moore and Bill Black. Just listen to Blue Moon - you'll have to admit 1.) it was just as revolutionary for its day as The Beatles were for theirs and 2.) that George Harrison's guitar playing style (on early Beatle songs) sounds awlful close to Scotty Moore's playing (and goes without saying George was influenced by Carl Perkins).



Bill Black played stand up bass on Elvis' early recording and the drummer is really missed with Bill's doghouse bass slapping technique. He had some success with his own band, The Bill Black Combo. They had hits with Smokie Part 2 (#17 on the pop charts) and White Silver Sands (#9 on the pop charts) - all together a total of eight Top 40 hits.

Willie Dixon There can't be enough said about him.

List of songs written by Willie Dixon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Johnnie Johnson played piano for Chuck Berry. Johnson was talented musician and he helped Chuck with arrangements on a couple of his songs. He is inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as well as the Rhythm and Blues Foundation.

It's pretty much a shell game. If I mention that Elvis is a stronger singer then you say he didn't write songs eshewing any comparison where The Beatles don't come up on top (like singing ablity).

There were plenty of mold breakers before The Beatles. Robert Johnson was know for playing Irish jigs on guitar but unfortanetly none of those songs were ever recorded. Why? Because he broke the mold for what Blues guitar player should play back then.

Well.... Les Paul single handedly invented the multi track recording studio along with all those techinques you boast about The Beatles using like Tape Looping, Phasing, and even Flanging, direct line in* etc etc.

*I read where Paul McCartney was the first to directly plug his bass into the recording console which thus became a recording standard, because it was a Belates first, but I'm sure Les Paul was doing something similar with his guitar a decade earlier.

I don't think anyone would claim that the Beatles were the first mold breakers. I guess Elvis was a better singer than Paul, who the Beatle that had the strongest voice, in my opinion. I'm not so sure, though, Paul had a great soft voice and he could get really loud when he wanted to. Elvis wasn't the multi-instrumentalist or the songwriters that the Beatles were. So even if he could sing better, I'd say the Beatles had the upper hand. No disrespect to Elvis, though. And I'm not trying to turn this into a Elvis vs Beatles debate.

As for dissonant fading in and out sounds, Karlheinz Stockhausen is a great example of that. Much more experimental and pushes the boundaries further than The Beatles if you ask me.

I'm not a Beatles hater, just don't think they are the most creative gods in the world.

I'm not saying that they were not the first mold breakers. I'm only saying that they are not the only mold breakers in the history of music. For some reason it comes off as when the Beatles does something groundbreaking it the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if another band or artist does something groundbreaking it suddenly becomes inconsequential.

Whenever speaking of artist who recorded before the 70's a lot of times I guess because of the quality of the recording the songs doesn't get recognition it deserves or gets overlooked or disliked because of the sound quality. Imo there are a lot of Rockabilly songs that outweigh many Beatle songs when it comes to singing and guitar playing. Maybe I guess it's because I like Rockabilly a little bit more. And sometimes I feel artists like Buddy Holly, Elvis, Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, Johnny Cash don't get recognized for their groundbreakingness or moldbreakingness because they become seen as passé in light of the The Beatles.