Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
Yes, I'm making an argument about the quality of their music -- their popularity is beyond dispute.
1) They were immensely popular for reasons other than the quality of their music; and 2) They were immensely popular in the right generation.
These two factors explain a lot of their lasting power, imo.
|
I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree with that, as long as "other than" is the same as "in addition to". Wouldn't you say the same for Michael Jackson and Madonna? I'd argue that if Led Zeppelin weren't such successful partiers and if they didn't cover so many blues songs - if they tried to hype the same act now, they'd look a lot more like Spinal Tap than Led Zeppelin.
Quote:
|
But irrespective of their popularity -- their music isn't any better than a lot of other folks, their innovations don't seem particular innovative to me, and their lyrics make the Beastie Boys look like poetic genius.
|
I also don't think anyone in their right mind would seriously suggest that they weren't musically better than N-Sync. And I'm guessing your judgments of musical innovation are made by musical ears that were heavily constructed by the Beatles and Beatles influenced musicians.
Quote:
|
That's not to say that 'Shake it up Baby' isn't a jiggy tune or that Abbey Road (as previously mentioned) isn't a helluva good album....I'm saying the Beatles were good, they just weren't all that great.
|
Good or great at what, then? they obviously did something that very few have done or could do. And they made a bunch of music that a bunch of people have enjoyed for a bunch of years. And they did it better than most others. That's pretty great, and it took more musical talent and media savvy than a jiggy tune and a single hella album. The boomers did the hyping, but they had to have the right band to hype.