Re: Are the Beatles actually musically significant?

"Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "R.A.G. Seely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex) wrote in
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > > So, quite frankly, I don't see anyone out there who took the Beatles
> > > lessons to their heart. Everybody slid back into the brain dead way of
> > > making music. Something's telling me that things will not improve much
> > > in the future. The Beatles significance has been lost.
> >
> > I really don't see whether or not subsequent rock/pop groups were
> > influenced by the Beatles as being relevant when it comes to whether or
not
> > their music will endure.  (I did post a related comment on this in
another
> > thread I think.)  The real question is whether or not people will
continue
> > to perform their music, and not just on radio or in concert, but in
bands,
> > in choirs, in school orchestras, in bars, and so on.  (One could argue
that
> > Bach wasn't all that influential either during or after his life, but
it'd
> > be hard to argue that he wasn't musically significant.  He did influence
> > some rather significant people (as Ian pointed out), but that influence
was
> > probably not as obvious to "outsiders".)
>
> You've missed my point, I think. What I was trying to say is this (and
> I'll bring in some fairly obvious simplifications now, just to
> emphasize the point):
>
> Every now and then, a musican or a group of musicians emerge, and
> change the face of the music. Like, Lous Armstrong did in the late
> twenties, Django Reinhardt did in the thirties, Charlie Parker did in
> the forties, Miles and Coltrane and Monk did in the fifties, and so on
> (I've intentionally left out many great names here, in order to keep
> my post manageable). Basically, once these guys bring their artistry
> out in the open, things change, and can never slide back to the way
> they were before such an event.
>
> The Beatles were one such incident (anomaly?) After Chuck Berry and
> the other pioneering rock'n rollers brought the new music form to the
> masses, things changed, and could never roll (no pun intended) back to
> where they were prior to the '50s. But then the Beatles took this art
> form, ameliorated it, fused it with many other forms of popular music
> (basically, threw in everything except jazz), and came up with
> something utterly fresh, utterly original and new. They showed the
> world how to make truly effective music that goes straight for the
> jugular.
>
> Now, in my opinion, the lesson Beatles brought to the world was the
> most important music lesson in the recent history. It was a major
> breakthrough, comparable to the stuff Beethoven did in his time, etc.
> But, while most people took Beethoven's lessons to heart, and decided
> not to slip back to the pre-Beethoven level, I'm not seeing people
> taking the Beatles lessons to their hearts, and deciding not to slip
> back to the pre-Beatles level.
>

What exactly are these lessons? I suspect you're making your judgement based
on a narrow sampling of recent top 40 music. There's plenty of eclectic,
original, honest music around. It may not be to your taste, but that's just
a personal preference, not whether or not they "took the Beatles' lessons to
their hearts."