DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => The Beatles => Topic started by: fanofthefab4 on January 24, 2007, 06:28:47 PM
-
>:( There is an unfortunately now popular anti-Beatles music critic Piero Scaruffi and The New York Times had an article on him in The Arts section from October 2006 and the guy who wriote it Dan Morrell calls Scaruffi's web site The Greatest Web Site Ever! Scaruffi is also cognitive scientist and poet and the author of a volume called The History of Rock Music that has sold over 1,000 copies,and where he says the same ignorant inaccurate garbage about The Beatles, and he has a huge music web site and he has an irrational thing against The Beatles! He really is one of these unreasonable people who is really mad about the fact that the group that he doesn't like(which I just can't understand!) instead of his favorite groups is the most popular and critically acclaimed! He says totally ignorant inaccurate garbage about The Beatles that is not an issue of just an opinion, there is *plenty* of proof and examples from The Beatles recording engineers to debunk his ridiculous claims! The wikipedia free online encyclopedia says that his reviews are conterversial and most rock critics around the world disagree with what he says about The Beatles. I emailed him back in the Fall of 2001 when I first found his site while looking for reviews of The Beatles. He wrote me back 3 different ignorant responses and then I just gave up and didn't answer him back. I couldn't argue with an ignoramus anymore. He actually says such inaccurate ridiculous things as The Beatles never did anything of creative depth and never were musically innovative! He also calls them 4 mediocre musicians who only became popular because of George Martin and Brian Epstein's great marketing! Really whatever happened to the one hit wonders and the true artifical pop groups who had great marketing but are not the most critically acclaimed and popular rock group ever like they are!
He also says that no other musicians spoke highly of The Beatles and couldn't really understand why they were held in such high regard. This is totally untrue! Jimi Hendrix played Day Tripper Live,and he also played Sgt.Pepper live in concert only 2 days after it came out,Bob Dylan said The Beatles chords were so ourageous and that they were doing things even in their early career that was never done before and that their great melodies and harmonies made it all valid,The Rolling Stones were good friends with The Beatles and big fans of them too,and Mick Jagger was t 4 Beatles recording sessions and Keith Richards was at 2 of them with him! The Beatles also wrote one of The Rolling Stones first real hits with the song,I Wann Be You're Man in early 1964. Brian Wilson says he was blown away by how brilliant Rubber Soul was,and this motivated him to make Pet Sounds and called John and Paul the 2 greatest song writers of the 20th century,Ozzy Osbourne has been a huge Beatles fan since he was a teenager,and he said in a 2002 online Bender Magazine interview that The Beatles Are The Greatest Band To Ever Walk The Earth! He also says not loving The Beatles is like not loving oxogen. Eric Clapton said John was a very good guitar player,and he would have known since he played live in concert with John as a member of his 1969 John Lennon Plastic Ono Band. Eric also called George Harrison a fantastic slide guitar player when he and George were interviewed during a 1992 tour of Japan together and were asked what they admired about each other. There is also an excellent web site,The Evolution of Rock Bass Playing McCartney Style by Denis Alstrand. in it Stanley Clarke,Will Lee,Billy Sheehan and Sting all say what a great,melodic and influential bass player Paul has always been! The 1992 Rolling Stone Album Guide also says Paul is a remarkable bass player as well as calling John and Paul the greatest song writers in the history of rock. The All Music Guide also says these things about them as well as nd says that John and Paul were also among the best and most expressive singers in rock.In the Fall of 2001 I emailed Andre Gardner about this guy and his web site. Andre is the huge Beatles fan expert rock radio DJ who has been hosting Breakfast With The Beatles on my local classic rock station for years, he looked up his site and emailed me back and said this bozo gave higher ratings to The Fugs than The Beatles! I never even heard of The Fugs.
He actually told me in one of the emails that I was the most intelligent Beatles fan he ever communicated with because I didn't bring up how many records The Beatles sold and try to use this as an example of why they were great. He claimed he wanted some real solid information to make the case about why they were great not just record sales,so I gave it to him,I suggested he read the excellent thorough book,The Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn. Which is a very thorough detailed music diary of their remarkable 8 year recording career. I told him that all of their recording engineers are interviewed in this book such as Geoff Emerick,Norman Smith who went on to work with Pink Floyd,Ken Scott who went on to work with David Bowie,and Alan Parsons a highly impressed Beatles fan was one of their recording engineers on their last 2 albums,Abbey Road and Let it Be. They all describe in details how truly innovative,creative and inventive especially John and Paul were in the recording studio. But this *still* didn't get through to him! He actually is a Doors fan though,they were good but they didn't even have a bass player and I read on some message boards people saying they think The Doors are overrated pretentious crap and that they were not great musicians!
Also there are many good music professors teaching courses on The Beatles at good universities. One of them is award winning music professor and composer Dr.Glen Gass at Indiana University. He's been teaching a course on rock music and a Beatles course since 1982. On his web site for his course it says the main purpose of this course is to get students to have a better appreciation of this amazing group and their extraordinary recordings. Dr.Gary Kendal's Beatles course is the most requested at North Western University and there is also a Beatles course taught at The University of California. A music professor with the last name of Heinonen at JYVASKYLA university in Finland also teaches a Beatles course. Also The Beatles are # 1 on acclaimed music .net which combines all of the different rock music critics reviews from decades!
-
Never heard of the guy.
-
Well I'm glad you didn't hear of him because he deserves not be heard of! But on this web site called Listology, there are quite a few posters on there that follow him and quote him almost verbatim like they are brainwashed members of his cult or something. A few even claimed to be Beatles fans before. It's really scary how they say how they totally trust and rely on his music "opinions" and say they think he's right about most things he says! But as the wikipedia says most rock critics worldwide disagree with the crap he says about The Beatles. The Beatles are rightfully the # 1 acclaimed music artists on acclaimedmusic.net which combines all of the rock music reviews done by many different rock critics over decades!
-
As a wise man once said: 'Don't Follow Leaders'.
There have been Beatlesfans and -haters ever since the early days. It is quite easy to critize what other people have achieved. It seems that the guy is neglected by most of his collegues and therefore will be no more than a footnote in history. Speaking of history: The Beatles themselves have proven him to be wrong. I'd say it's nothing to be worried about.
-
Thank you bobber! :) But I wouldn't say he's ignored by others please look up his site and read his review of The Beatles and look up The New York Times article by Dan Forrell called The Greatest Web Site Ever about Scaruffi and his music site. It's very obvious to me as I said, that he is the type of person that is really mad that his favorite groups are not the most critically acclaimed and the most popular,so he resents The Beatles because they are and so he has this inaccurate irrational thing against them. I have found over 40 former Beatles haters on message boards and other web sites who are now big Beatles fans. I didn't communicate with them. But they say they had ignorant misperceptions about them and hadn't even heard most of their songs and albums. Now,most people don't hate The Beatles to begin with and most people of all ages love or at least like their music worldwide. But most people don't go from hating a group to becoming big fans,and this just goes to show how great The Beatles are! But what really gets me is the total inaccurate ignorant crap Scaruffi says about them! When I *know* it's not accurate!
-
Thanks for the info :)
I agree, it is REALLY annoying when someone spouts off without even bothering to learn the facts. I think that even most non-fans appreciate the importance and impact of the group though, if grudgingly!
These sorts of people thrive on attention - the attention he gets from his "followers" and from fans who complain about him! He is after a reaction - don't give him the satisfaction!
I'm pretty sure someone has posted on here about him before and the same advice was provided then too: ignore him. I did, and I didn't even remember his name when you mentioned him in your post! So it works! ;D
-
Does Scaruffi want us to burn their records?
-
Does Scaruffi want us to burn their records?
LOL!!!! ;D
-
I don't mind a bit of debate - it's nice change from people discounting their importance simply because they don't like the music. I think it's important we don't became like the church and ostracize people jusy because they don't agree with us. I think we should be comfortable that with the strength of our case we can batter him down on any point he cares to raise.
-
[...] I think we should be comfortable that with the strength of our case we can batter him down on any point he cares to raise.
Need we say anything else? 8)
-
Does Scaruffi want us to burn their records?
I have a better idea,why don't we burn his web site and his "book"
:D
-
I don't mind a bit of debate - it's nice change from people discounting their importance simply because they don't like the music. I think it's important we don't became like the church and ostracize people jusy because they don't agree with us. I think we should be comfortable that with the strength of our case we can batter him down on any point he cares to raise.
Well even though I will never really understand how anyone doesn't like at least some Beatles music since they made all different syles and did it so well, this is not really mostly an issue of him just not liking The Beatles music, it's as I said the total inaccurate bullsh*t he says about them as if it were true and correct when I have provided a lot of facts to correct and debunk him! This is like the same ignorant crap that some young people are saying calling The Beatles a "boy" band and comparing them to true artificial manufactured boy bands like NYSYNC and The Backstreet Boys!
Also, as early as 1963 music critics were seriously studying The Beatles music, and music critic William Mann of The London Times pointed out the unusual and interesting chords they used even in early songs like She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand and that they used clever sublties in their music,and that these songs are not as simple as they seem even though their middle and later music was more innovative and complex. Bob Dylan also said that even in songs I Want To Hold Your Hand and She Loves You their chords were outrageous and that they were doing things that nobody had done before and their melodies and harmonies made it all valid. And also in December 1963 a music critic Richard Buckle of The Sunday London Times called John and Paul the 2 greatest composers since Beethoven after reviewing the music they composed for a ballet called Mods and Rockers. At that time it was very unheard of and unusual for any music critic to compare young rock artists with Beethoven! It's still not that common today! I mean John and Paul were incredible, as early as 1963 when they were just staring to write *their* hits,they were also writing hit songs for other music artists!
The Beatles producer George Martin is a very talented guy himself and he a classicaly trained musician who studied at the Guildhall School of Music as a teenager. He has produced many music artists since The Beatles, but he still says he has never worked with anyone as brilliant as The Beatles!
-
All excellent points.
But if I was PS and in an arguementative mood I would argue:
1.William Mann's essay is generally regarded as pretenscious claptrap and was widely derided at the time (including by The Beatles) and did not reflect any type of acceptance by the musical establishment. Also that his critic is famous for being unique, rather than reflecting any trend of serious study by music critics in 1963. And that The Times has a history of pandering to the youth movement (it was them that did the Butterfly on a wheel article and ran the legalise dope ads).*
2. Richard Buckle was a ballet, not music critic. The "specially composed" music was just a brief instrumental, otherwise it was a reworking of current Beatle music. Buckle was well known as a controversial figure, and besides, there is every liklehood that he was drunk at the time( :)).
3. Dylan is also widely quoted as saying "turn that cr*p off" when hearing Sgt Pepper on the radio.
4. There are plenty of songfactory duos (Goffin King, Leiber Stoller) who knocked out hits by the bucketload.
* I'd probably also argue that besides, it's rock and roll we're talking about here, the music of rebellion for the new youth culture. Get away with your "Aeolian cadence" and your "melismas with altered vowels ." Save that for your yawn-inducing three album gatefold quazi-classical epics of the prog rockers. :)
In 1963 r'n'r was about sex (and all the better for it IMO.) It was supposed to rebel against their parents stuffy world, not mimic it. (ps this is an anti Mann, not anti Beatles rant.)
-
Kevin,
It's Scaruffi who doesn't really know what he's talking about! Classical composer Leonard Bernstein also called John and Paul the 2 most brilliant song composers of the 20th century! And to say that Richard Buckle was probably drunk when he said that John and Paul were the 2 greatest song composers since Beethoven is ridiculous and Scaruffi would sound like *he's* drunk to come up with this and it sounds like you can't really be a true fan to say something like that! And there are no defenses for the crap he's saying so why try to make up ones that defend him? And the point is *MANY* other well known musicians *HAVE* praised their music so it's totally false what he's saying! And it still was very unheard of and considered outrageous for *any* music critics to compare a 21 and 23 year old rock compors to Beethoven and it still is today! There were some comparing them to Schubert . How do you know that Richard Buckle was just a ballet critic,Hunter Davies the only authorized biographer of The Beatles doesn't say that he says he was a music critic for The London Sunday Times and that William Mann was a music critic for The London Times. . And besides it was a ballet John and Paul composed the music for. And the quote you used from Bob Dylan, doesn't take away from what he said about even their early music! He was friends with The Beatles and they had a mutual respect. Many people have said that he went electric because of The Beatles. Just like he influenced their folk rock on their brilliant Rubber Soul album. If Bob Dylan said that I'm sure it was because he didn't like psychedelic music.
There have been plenty of good music scholars and critics who have written about,studied and praised their music. Another example of Scaruffi's inaccurate bull in saying The Beatles never did anything innovative or of creative depth,is their recording engineer Geoff Emerick says that John was one of the first ones to own a melotron,and their tape operator Jerry Boys says that The Beatles used it in ways nobody had thought of before! Do you really think that award winning music professors would be teaching courses on The Beatles at good universities if anything he's saying was valid? Also Geoff Emerick explains in The Beatles Recording Sessions that in early 1966 George Harrison played backwards guitar the most difficult way possible even though he could have taken the easy way,and that it took him 6 hours just for the overdubs! He then made it even more difficult by adding more distorted guitars. And Geoff says this was all George's idea and that he did all of the playing. George also would stay up until 2 in the morning at age 14 playing the guitar until he got the chords just right and his fingers were bleeding!
-
Well whenever i hear someone who doesn't like the beatles for good reason, i just think 'hah, if only they knew what they're missing out on', so in other words, their the suckers really for not knowing how much pleasure (musical ;D) they can really get out of them..i'd give anything to re-discover the beatles again, knowing hardly any of their stuff. Thank god we've discovered them is what i say!
-
I totally agree that what PS says about The Beatles not being innovative or creative is rubbish. I think The Beatles are head and shoulders the greatest band to have walked this earth. I don't think that at any point I said I agreed with what PS said (nor did I mean to imply that what you said was rubbish). I was playing devils advocate really, trying to think of some counter arguements that weren't based simply on personal taste.
Re Richard Buckle - all the bio's I read about him called him a ballet critic, so I took the plunge. The drunk thing was a joke (hence the smiley face) because they also mentioned his love of the drink. He was also a raging queen, and I was going to say he probably only liked the Beatles because of the "Epstein effect". And really, I don't see how composing music for a ballet ( a bit of a misnomer - it was only a brief instrumental) gives a rock and roll band any kudos. Kind of puts them in late Elton John territory.
I used the single Dylan quote to counter your own (that made it 1-1 and even stevens.) I totally agree that The Beatles had a huge influence on Dylan. Again, I was just arguing because it's fun, and to show it's easy to pull up individual facts and quotes that suit your own side.
But I stand by what I said about Mann. I think his little essay did more harm than good.
At the end of the day though we are very much on the same side. I think the difference is I welcome debates with people like Mr PS. It's why I joined a forum in the first place (how boring would it be if we just sat here all day agreeing with each other.)
All the power to you. Please don't take this too seriously. And welcome by the way.
-
I totally agree that what PS says about The Beatles not being innovative or creative is rubbish. I think The Beatles are head and shoulders the greatest band to have walked this earth. I don't think that at any point I said I agreed with what PS said (nor did I mean to imply that what you said was rubbish). I was playing devils advocate really, trying to think of some counter arguements that weren't based simply on personal taste.
Re Richard Buckle - all the bio's I read about him called him a ballet critic, so I took the plunge. The drunk thing was a joke (hence the smiley face) because they also mentioned his love of the drink. He was also a raging queen, and I was going to say he probably only liked the Beatles because of the "Epstein effect". And really, I don't see how composing music for a ballet ( a bit of a misnomer - it was only a brief instrumental) gives a rock and roll band any kudos. Kind of puts them in late Elton John territory.
I used the single Dylan quote to counter your own (that made it 1-1 and even stevens.) I totally agree that The Beatles had a huge influence on Dylan. Again, I was just arguing because it's fun, and to show it's easy to pull up individual facts and quotes that suit your own side.
But I stand by what I said about Mann. I think his little essay did more harm than good.
At the end of the day though we are very much on the same side. I think the difference is I welcome debates with people like Mr PS. It's why I joined a forum in the first place (how boring would it be if we just sat here all day agreeing with each other.)
All the power to you. Please don't take this too seriously. And welcome by the way.
But Kevin,I will say it again, what Scaruffi says are not his "opinions" they are totally inaccurate and false! Some things are just opinions but there is such a thing as facts and ignorant misperceptions and myths. I gave strong factual evidence that totally debunks the garbage he says. For example when he claims that no musicians of The Beatles time praised them and couldn't understand why they were held in such high regard, it's totally untrue and I listed countless well known musicians and music artists that *have* prasied them and some even played on their solo albums. Many as I wrote about in my orginal post have also praised them as musicians as well When Scaruffi says the stupid crap that The Beatles never did anything of creative depth and weren't innovative, I gave an excellent source,The Beatles Recording Sesions by Mark Lewisohn that has many of their recording enginers and tape operators and they were *there* describing in details how truly innovative,inventive and creative they realy *were* ! So again,it's just not true what he says and there isn't any other side here. And the fact that John and Paul could write music for a ballet Mods and Rockers and also write great rock music just goes to show how diverse and brilliantly talented they were at *all* types of music. Scaruffi doesn't know what the he* he's talking about!
On a web site Historic Lists The Greatest Rock Groups and Guitarists of All Time, many people are saying The Beatles were the greatest rock band of all time. But there were some idiots on here too saying really ignorant negative things about them. So, many people who know the facts tried to correct them. One guy John says to one of these ignoramuses, after he went into a lot of details about how innovative The Beatles really were,that this guy is like Beatles hater Piero Scaruffi,he's clueless and that if he doesn't like The Beatles fine(it's never fine or understandable with me though!) but at least get your facts straight before you post! There was a 24 year old guy from Australia who said The Beatles are the greatest band ever and that they wrote so many great songs! A 16 year old guy also said he's only 16 and he knows The Beatles are the greatest band ever and he said anyone who doesn't think so should listen to Rubber Soul,Abbey Road Magical Mystery Tour The white album and see what a mistake they are making! I just read a post from a total moron on there now, who gets quotes from some other online article that claims The Beatles couldn't sing they could only shout,and they were the worst group and musicians ever,and that they just stole things from other people! A guy George on there who says his favorite group is Led Zeppelin,says to this guy are you a joke? He went on to give many examples of how innovative The Beatles were and said he could go on about The Beatles musical merits but he doesn't have time to write a book! He also mentions that wikipedia the online encyclopedia explains The Beatles are the most critically acclaimed and best selling music groups and artist of all time! He said the recent issue of Q magazine says they are the most essential rock artists of all time! Take that Scaruffi and anyone who listens to him!
Also as I said there have been plenty of other serious music scholars that have written about and praised The Beatles.
-
If want to get huge publicity knock the biggest thing on the planet in music and away you go .If he was going to make a name for himself who would be better than the beatles.
Would any one care if his was decrediting the backstreet boys? no.
As ERIC CANTONA said "people who call you know you exsist".
-
:) Mr.kite, you are *so* right! I have said it's very obvious that Scaruffi really hates the fact that *his* favorite groups and music artists are not the most critically acclaimed and the most popular,and since The Beatles are he resents them and he has this irational thing against them! I'm sure that he would say the same garbage about any other group that he wasn't a fan of if they were the most popular and critically acclaimed! You know he even says that The Beatles (he means early Beatles) haircuts were a lot like comedian Ish Kabibble's! To even mention such a thing is so ridiculous and irrelevant!
-
This was originally posted by fanofthefab4
>:( :( On a site called ilXor.com, they have a topic posted August 2006 ,Is There Anyone Here Who Genuinely dislikes Or Hates The Beatles? And unfortunately someone posts a highlighted link to that horrible Piero Scaruffi's page and article he wrote about The Beatles! There were quite a few agreeing with him and saying that he's right on the money about a lot of things. They quoted him saying that The Beatles "innovations" were just a watered down and coppied version of lesser known artists and Scaruffi's quotes that in Beatles songs there were no kids running in the streets,no politics,no drugs,no sex, and no violence.In the world of The Beatles the social order of the 40's and 50's still reigns,and he says at best they were influential on the secret deams of young girls and on the haircuts of young nerdy boys. Several posters pointed out Why Don't we Do it in The Road,and Happines is A Warm Gun for being Sex and drug songs. But there are other Beatles sex and drugs songs, Day Tripper from late 1965 was about sex and drugs,Paul's Got To Get You Into My Life was an ode to pot, Dr.Robert was about a doctor who gave drugs to his patients, and A Day in The Life with the verses I 'd Love To Turn You On were about LSD and Girl has John and Paul singing T*t over and over in the backround. John's Revolution was political too! A guy on this board this Tim said Scaruffi's page about The Beatles is a horrah and he didn't want to read through this garbage again! He said they were a great rock group,and another guy said they were the most consistent pop/rock great writers ever.
-
A poster Tim, on ilXor.com calls Piero Scaruffi's anti-Beatles page a horrah and said he doesn't want to read through that garbage again! And then he said I mean Wow. He said The Beatles were a great rock group. But there were quite a few people agreeing with a poster on here who said everything he hates about The Beatles is their trite lyrics, their voices, drunken pub sing a long melodies,nasally singing and cluncky sound. He and the few who agrees with him must have them mixed up with some other singers and groups! Bob Dylan as many people have said over the years has nver had a good singing voice, and Tom Petty's is a very nassaly annoying voice, and Bruce Springteen's voice is the worst I ever heard,he sounds like he's throwing up to a music backing. But John and Paul were as The All Music Guide and many others have said,among the best and most expressive singers in rock! John Lennon especially had such a unique beautiful voice,just listen to him sing This Boy especially the middle part,Dear Prudence, If I Fell, In My Life etc etc and he also had a great rock voice too,Revolution, Money, Happiness is A Warm Gun,etc etc. George Martin says John's is one of the best voices he ever heard. And recording engineers said they always were amazed by John's voice and wanted to hear it live,and when The Beatles recorded Baby You're A Rich Man in May 1967,they said how great John's voice was and they couldn't belive that anyone could sing that well! And of course Paul has always been a great singer with a very good sounding voice and has both a great love song and great rock voice with a great range. I just can't understand some people!
-
Well whenever i hear someone who doesn't like the beatles for good reason, i just think 'hah, if only they knew what they're missing out on', so in other words, their the suckers really for not knowing how much pleasure (musical ;D) they can really get out of them..i'd give anything to re-discover the beatles again, knowing hardly any of their stuff. Thank god we've discovered them is what i say!
Not liking The Beatles for *good* reason? I hope you meant for no good reason! Because as we know there isn't any good reason not to like them except maybe a few songs. And otherwise it wouldn't make any sense with the rest of what you said. But everything else you said is so right on! I have posted this on this site already but I'm going to tell you,that I have found over 40 former Beatles haters on many different message boards and web sites who are now big Beatles fans. I didn't communicate with them at all,but they wrote that they had a lot of misperceptions about them and hadn't even heard most of their albums and songs. Most people of all ages love or at least like The Beatles worldwide,and most people don't hate them in the first place. But most people don't go from hating a group to loving them and becoming big fans! This just really goes to show how great The Beatles really are! If you type in quotes " I used to hate The Beatles" on the google.com search engine you will find these people.
-
I just read his Beatle review (well most of it, I got bored).
His arguement about The music isn't really that new. That there were bands producing experiamental or new music that were totally ignored by the public, and hence the mainstream media (or maybe it's vice versa) you can't really argue about. That The Beatles absorbed these influences like a sponge and reproduced them in a more commercially succesful way is also quite right. I've read a similar line in Q (which is VERY Beatle friendly). But they deemed it as a positive, not a negative. The Beatles were, after all, in the business of selling records, and by the bucket load. What's the point in being new and experimental, making one album that noone listens to and dissapearing? According to Q (and I have to go with them) their genius was their receptiveness to all things new and their ability to take all these disparate and fringe ideas and turn them into something that can get played on the radio. (wasn't the backwards guitar thing a result of Paul's infatuation with Stockhausen and the likes?) And before anyone yells at me that's no easy thing - noone else could do it. So Q turn into a positive and PS turns it into a negative. Everyones got an arguement, everyone can take the same facts and come to a different conclusion.
His socio-philosphical arguements are out of my league. He seems to accuse The Beatles of being part of a middle class conspiracy to take black music out of rock and roll and replace it with nice smiley commercial friendly white faces, to make the revolution less of a threat. But then he seems to be the kind of "free thinker" that thinks all middle classes are unwitting brainwashed sheep. Baaaa!
-
Kevin,
The Beatles did *hell* of a lot more than copy other people's music and thats not even what they did most of the time! Just because they were influenced by other music artists,a hell of lot more music artists copied *them* ! The Rolling Stones for example often copied The Beatles and their 1967 Their Satanic Majesties Request was a blatant rip off of Sgt Pepper but idiots like Scaruffi are not going to mention this! Many people including music reviewers Wilson and Alroy have said that Led Zeppelin often ripped off other music groups and artists guitar riffs and made it seem orginal! I just posted on here before that a guy on a site ilXor.com said that Scaruffi's article about The Beatles is a horrah and he said I mean WOW and he said he didn't want to read that garbage again! I suggest you go to a library and read Mark Lewisohn's The Beatles Recording Sessions and then maybe you will see I'm right! Scaruffi as I said claims that The Beatles had no creative depth and did nothing innovative, but he thinks The Fugs who I never heard of were and The Doors who many have said were pretntious crap and weren't good musicicans, they didn't even have a bass player let alone one as great as Paul who in addition was always a great singer and musical composer, and claims that no musicians of The Beatles time praised them and couldn't understand why they were held in such high regard. I *already* gave *many* factual examples of how this is totally false! I'm not going to list all of the examples and countless well known musicians again who *have* praised them!
He also claims there were no drugs,sex or politics in Beatles songs I also listed many songs that *did* have sex and drugs in them and John's Revolution *was* a political song! Which is just *another* example of how he doesn't know what he's talking about! He also says The Beatles(he has to mean the early Beatles) haircuts were like comedien Ish Kibibble's that is ridiculous to even mention and irelevant! He claims that the reason The Beatles who he calls just 4 mediocre musicians are the most popular critically acclaimed group of all time is because they just made music with nice melodies that appeals to the masses and because of George Martin and Brian Epstein's marketing. Can he explain all of the one hit wonders and the other groups that had good marketing but really were artificial pop groups that didn't become the most popular and crtically acclaimed group even 37 years after they broke up and Brian Epstein has been dead 40 years now? A named George on this site Historic Lists The Greatest Rock Bands and Guitarists of All time says the recent Q magazine calls The Beatles The Most Essential rock artists of all time. Q Magazine doesn't say The Beatles never did anything innovative or creative and doesn't call them mediocre musicians who just had nice melodies for the masses and were popular mostly because of George Martin and Brian Epstein's marketing! As I said the wikipedia online encylopedia says most rock critics around the world disagree with him about The Beatles! Look up The Beatles biography on The All Music Guide online and you will see that they say they were the single greatest rock act of all time and introcuced more innovations into music than anyone! You know Beatles haters use Scaruffi as a reference source something to keep in mind when you say you are a Beatles fan on a Beatles fan site!
-
I also want to mention that I have found more than a few people on different message boards saying that they don't like Mick Jagger's or Rober Plant's voices. And Frank Marino the guitarist from the hard rock group Mahogany Rush says on two online interviews that he has always hated The Rollling Stones but he still likes and listens to The Beatles,Jimi Hendrix etc. And Nick Navarro from Jane's Adiction is quoted on a Jane's Addiction web site from Guitar World in 1991 and 1996 saying he has always hated The Rolling Stones and he always will and he will never play an album by them! :D
-
OK, lets get this straight. I'm not on this guys side, just trying to show how someone can look at something and come to a totally different conclusion.
I never said The Beatles did nothing but copy other peoples work. That's silly. What I said was "their genius was their receptiveness to all things new and their ability to take all these disparate and fringe ideas and turn them into something that can get played on the radio." . Totally different meaning. You lept to the wrong conclusion and started talking about people "ripping off" things. Totally off the mark.
Where would they have been without Dylan, The Byrds and Brian Wilson? And yes, I've read Lewishon's book. And I was trying to show how Q magazine had that same belief, but turned into a positive. It is no detriment that they went away and listened to music outside the mainstream and used these influences to create incredibly fantastic music that was of huge influence to others. I think it boils down to what you think "innovative" and "creative" mean. I don't agree with him, but I can see Mr PS's background (left wing academic) might mean that he places different meanings to these words than me.
I agree he's wrong about The Beatles not recieving contempary praise. We know they did.
The sex and drugs thing - to be honest I listened to all those songs for years without realising their "hidden" meanings.You must agree that they are exceptionally vague. Mr PS could well argue that what is the validity of having these references if noone knows they're there. He would argue that everyone knew what "Mothers Little Helper" and "Lets Spend The Night Together" were about. Then you would say their genius was their subtelty, their ability to insert subversive meanings into otherwise harmless songs. And on it goes.
The haircut thing - you're both being silly.
And the popularity thing - I think he went to extrordinory lengths to say why he thought what he thought. I, like you, don't agree with him. But he's not an idiot, and as I said a lot of things were out of my league.
My friend - I agree with most of what you say about The Beatles. It's just that your fanatical zealousness makes Al-Queeda (sp) look like boyscouts. And do you really go around websites identifying former "Beatle Haters."
ps I'd be careful about using Hunter Davies as a reference (authorised should be replaced by "sanatised"), or for that matter Anthology. The Beatles openly said they were telling their side of the story. Great chunks are missing (Yoko and the breakup get nary a mention) and time can colour even the greatest of memories.
-
I am not fanatical I'm very knowledgeable about The Beatles and I'm trying correct the ignorant inaccurate garbage Scaruffi says about The Beatles and yes he is an idiot about them! How am being silly about pointing out that Scaruffi is stupid to mention The Beatles haircuts were like comedien Ish Kibibbles? You using The Rolling Stones songs as more blatant examples after I gave many Beatles song examples of sex and drugs, just sounds again like you are not a true fan! No matter what I point out you always try to discredit it! Where would The Beatles have been without Bob Dylan,The Byrds and The Beach Boys? Well lets see it was Roger Mguin himself who admitted that after seeing The George Harrison playing his 12 string guitar,The Byrds started playing them! Brian Wilson said after he heard The Beatles Rubber Soul,he was blown away by it! He said all of the songs flowed together,and it was pop music but folk rock at the same time,and this is what he couldn't believe. He said this is what motivated him to make Pet Sounds! And it's been said that Bob Dylan went electric because of The Beatles,so where would *they* all be without *them*!
I said I found many former Beatles haters on web sites by searching on google.com whats wrong with that I'm glad I found out about them! And I really resent you calling me fantatical when I am tyring to debunk his inaccrate ignorant Beatle hating crap that he's putting out there! >:( I have a good idea why don't you start to write with Scaruffi instead of being on this site!
-
People should realize that whenever a music critic writes something it's just the opinion of one individual person. A music critic's opinion is just as (un)important as anyone else's, the only difference is that music cricits have a platform.
I'm a music critic as well and whenever someone doesn't agree with one of my reviews I have a simple reply: your band sells 10/20/100 times as many records as my band, so why would you ever care?
-
1) I apologize that my using of the word fanatical has upset you.
2) Life's too short to argue about other people's haircuts.
3). If being a true fan means I can't praise The Stones then I don't want to be one.
4) What's wrong with googling " I hate The Beatles" in order to track down nonbelievers? Um, er, nothing I guess. Unless.....
"You know Beatles haters use Scaruffi as a reference source something to keep in mind when you say you are a Beatles fan on a Beatles fan site!"
Ah The Beatle Haters. They're everywhere you know, watching, waiting......
-
People should realize that whenever a music critic writes something it's just the opinion of one individual person. A music critic's opinion is just as (un)important as anyone else's, the only difference is that music cricits have a platform.
I'm a music critic as well and whenever someone doesn't agree with one of my reviews I have a simple reply: your band sells 10/20/100 times as many records as my band, so why would you ever care?
Because in Saruffi's case as I already pointed out extensively it's not just an "opinion" he is really ignorant and misinformed and a biased Beatles hater! I have already pointed out the facts that show he's wrong! If he said John Lennon had blonde hair and blue eyes would that be just an opinion or an incorrect statement?
-
Kevin unless what? I was curious to see if I would find out about people who had once hated them and became fans not to contact them,I never did I was just curious what would turn up if I typed in the seach engine"I used to Hate The Beatles" and I found out about many people. Maybe you are more of a Rolling Stones fan? I wasn't the one arguing about The Beatles haircuts I was the one who pointed out how ridiculous Scaruffi is for mentioning it! You know you are giving me the same hassle the anti-Beatles people who were listening to Scaruffi on the other site I had been on! I really didn't expect to get this here! I know I'm not wrong at all I'm glad I found out about the guy Tim on this other site who said the Saruffi's Beatles page was a horrah and he didn't want to read that garbage again! And I found a few other people mentioning on a few other sites that Scaruffi's a Beatles hater who doesn't have a clue.
-
Keven unless what? I was curious to see if I would find out about people who had once hated them and became fans not to contact them,I never did I was just curious what would turn up if I typed in the seach engine"I used to Hate The Beatles" and I found out about many people. Maybe you are more of a Rolling Stones fan?
Don't worry. If I have any kids I'll give them to Bobber so he can raise them proper.
Am I on some kind of list now?
-
What kind of list are you talking about Kevin?
-
The kind of list someone invents when they're trying (and obviously failing) to be funny.
By the way, BP likes The Beach Boys more than The Beatles, so I think you should go for him first.
-
I think debate is healthy, but remember to try and go easy on the sarcasm as it tends to offend. Especially with new members who may not know that it's only meant in a light hearted way. :)
-
Not liking The Beatles for *good* reason? I hope you meant for no good reason! Because as we know there isn't any good reason not to like them except maybe a few songs. And otherwise it wouldn't make any sense with the rest of what you said. But everything else you said is so right on! I have posted this on this site already but I'm going to tell you,that I have found over 40 former Beatles haters on many different message boards and web sites who are now big Beatles fans. I didn't communicate with them at all,but they wrote that they had a lot of misperceptions about them and hadn't even heard most of their albums and songs. Most people of all ages love or at least like The Beatles worldwide,and most people don't hate them in the first place. But most people don't go from hating a group to loving them and becoming big fans! This just really goes to show how great The Beatles really are! If you type in quotes " I used to hate The Beatles" on the google.com search engine you will find these people.
Yeah it was a typing error, i meant 'no good reason'. I agree with kevin, these discussions are healthy, and even let us get down to the heart of why we really like the beatles pure music, and what's so great about them. But for me, the music stands as an argument for itself, we don't really need to do it. Like you said in one of your previous posts, just listen to rubber soul, abbey road, white album, MMT, ect. to see what i'm talking about, and if they dont care then, oh well that's them isn't it?
-
If I have any kids I'll give them to Bobber so he can raise them proper.
I'm kind of expensive.
-
I think debate is healthy, but remember to try and go easy on the sarcasm as it tends to offend. Especially with new members who may not know that it's only meant in a light hearted way. :)
Yes. I think the moment got to me and I apologise to all concerned. I'll even do a :B
-
Only to show that Mr PS is neither original or alone in his thoughts, but I've just read a quote from Joe Meek, the "famous" producer, who in the 60's described The Beatles as "just another bunch of noise, copying other people's music."
I neither condone nor agree with that statement, but it seems he was fairly knowlegable and well thought of.
-
"The Beatles are not merely awful. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic"
- William F. Buckley, Jr (Journalist)
-
And Elvis Presley once told Richard Nixon that he thought The Beatles were spreading anti-American propaganda.
-
Pete Townsend: "John [Entwistle] and I were listening to a stereo L.P. of The Beatles in which the voices come out of one side, and the backing track comes out of the other. And when you actually hear the backing tracks of The Beatles without their voices, they're flippen lousy."
Asshol*
-
Pete Townsend: "John [Entwistle] and I were listening to a stereo L.P. of The Beatles in which the voices come out of one side, and the backing track comes out of the other. And when you actually hear the backing tracks of The Beatles without their voices, they're flippen lousy."
Asshol*
Who cares? (no pun intented) The Who sucks. One of the most overrated bands in music history. They couldn't even play a decent version of Barbara Ann...
-
Who cares? (no pun intented) The Who sucks. One of the most overrated bands in music history. They couldn've even play a decent version of Barbara Ann...
Never cared for them either. Magic Bus is apalling. And I find Beatle backing and arranging far better than anything they did.
-
Never cared for them either. Magic Bus is apalling. And I find Beatle backing and arranging far better than anything they did.
Pete Townsends singing, for one thing.
I've never been a fan of Roger Daltry's voice. Moon hits too many drums, Entwhistle plays too many notes, and Townsend can't play lead to save his life. Great band then! ;)
-
"The Beatles are not merely awful. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic"
- William F. Buckley, Jr (Journalist)
Hee! Thanks, BiscuitPower; this is one of the greatest quotes ever. It makes me want to pat Bill on his pompous, polysyllabic cheeks. *watches as Bill and "a clue" go off in opposite directions*
-
Here's another of Mr Buckley's quotes, directed at Gore Vidal :
-
Only the sixties? ;D
-
I despise this recent "I hate The Beatles because I've never actually listened" thing, where people say they hate them for no beter reason then that they are a popular group. As Jello Biafra himself said:
The punks need to get over themselves. There is no way John Lydon was as scary to England in 1977 as John Lennon was in 1967.
This large group of people, many who simply refuse to listen to "old" music, they just want to seem different. And if you have to TRY to be different, you're not different at all.
-
This large group of people, many who simply refuse to listen to "old" music, they just want to seem different. And if you have to TRY to be different, you're not different at all.
People who refuse to listen to old music are just silly. So much great pop music has been made in the last 50+ years, who would anyone limit himself to just music from the last 2-3 years? That's just like saying you only read books with titles starting with an N or that you only eat green colored food.
Consumer items go out of fashion, good art doesn't. So if you won't listen to older music because you think it's old fashioned, it says a lot about what music means to you.
-
OK, lets get this straight. I'm not on this guys side, just trying to show how someone can look at something and come to a totally different conclusion.
I never said The Beatles did nothing but copy other peoples work. That's silly. What I said was "their genius was their receptiveness to all things new and their ability to take all these disparate and fringe ideas and turn them into something that can get played on the radio." . Totally different meaning. You lept to the wrong conclusion and started talking about people "ripping off" things. Totally off the mark.
Where would they have been without Dylan, The Byrds and Brian Wilson? And yes, I've read Lewishon's book. And I was trying to show how Q magazine had that same belief, but turned into a positive. It is no detriment that they went away and listened to music outside the mainstream and used these influences to create incredibly fantastic music that was of huge influence to others. I think it boils down to what you think "innovative" and "creative" mean. I don't agree with him, but I can see Mr PS's background (left wing academic) might mean that he places different meanings to these words than me.
I agree he's wrong about The Beatles not recieving contempary praise. We know they did.
The sex and drugs thing - to be honest I listened to all those songs for years without realising their "hidden" meanings.You must agree that they are exceptionally vague. Mr PS could well argue that what is the validity of having these references if noone knows they're there. He would argue that everyone knew what "Mothers Little Helper" and "Lets Spend The Night Together" were about. Then you would say their genius was their subtelty, their ability to insert subversive meanings into otherwise harmless songs. And on it goes.
The haircut thing - you're both being silly.
And the popularity thing - I think he went to extrordinory lengths to say why he thought what he thought. I, like you, don't agree with him. But he's not an idiot, and as I said a lot of things were out of my league.
My friend - I agree with most of what you say about The Beatles. It's just that your fanatical zealousness makes Al-Queeda (sp) look like boyscouts. And do you really go around websites identifying former "Beatle Haters."
ps I'd be careful about using Hunter Davies as a reference (authorised should be replaced by "sanatised"), or for that matter Anthology. The Beatles openly said they were telling their side of the story. Great chunks are missing (Yoko and the breakup get nary a mention) and time can colour even the greatest of memories.
I just found this post from finding the topic on google, and 10 years ago I never looked up what Al Queeda was,that you cruelly said I made sound like the boyscouts,and I now found out that they are an Arab terrorist group what an extremely unjustified,horrible thing you said to me and I'm really surprised that none of the moderators didn't say anything to you about it.I wasn't cursing or threatening anyone in my posts, I just posted as a very knowledgeable passionate fan who was trying to debunk all of these lies by this now even more popular Scaruffi.
Here is a great rebuttal of Piero Scaruffi's countless hateful outright lies about The Beatles that I recently found.This is what I was and am trying to do too.
https://factorysunburst.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/piero-scaruffi-and-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-517 (https://factorysunburst.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/piero-scaruffi-and-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-517)
This great blog post is by a guitar player and musically academically knowledgeable guy debunking the totally ignorant,ludicrous hateful lies by cognitive scientist and music critic Piero Scaruffi about The Beatles that ignorant Beatles haters calling them a talentless boy band,are quoting on so many sites for many years now and still are.
https://factorysunburst.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/piero-scaruffi-and-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-517 (https://factorysunburst.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/piero-scaruffi-and-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-517)
On a heavy metal site someone posted Scaruffi's horrible inaccurate bullsh*t about The Beatles and a guy said that Scaruffi made up contrived bullsh*t about The Beatles and that a lot of people think he knows what he's talking about because he's a cognitive scientist.Many people elsewhere have said that Scaruffi just made up most of this bullsh*t,he made all of it up,the only facts he got right are John,Paul,George,Ringo,George Martin and Brian Epstein's names and when someone makes up that many lies about a subject,you can't trust anything they say about it.
I actually emailed this idiot Scaruffi back in 2001 to try to debunk his ignorant lies about The Beatles,and he emailed me back three times,and I was civil to him,(which wasn't easy,and I had to control myself from not cursing him,but I know that wasn't going to work to get through to him) and he was civil to me too,but you just can't get through to him.He actually said that he thought I'm one of the most intelligent Beatles fans he ever communicated with because I never mentioned The Beatles record sales as to why they are great and he actually claimed that this all the majority of Beatles fans said to him,that they sold the most records,which he denies that they did in his horrid article. I don't believe him at all I'm sure that a lot of other knowledgeable fans did inform him of a lot of academic and music scholarship that debunks his stupid,horrible lies but he just doesn't want to recognize it because he irrationally hates The Beatles and wants everyone else to hate them too.
-
what an extremely unjustified,horrible thing you said to me and I'm really surprised that none of the moderators didn't say anything to you about it.
If you look back through this thread you'll see that Kevin apologized, specifically to you and also to the forum at large.
-
Ten years ago.
-
Ten years ago.
Offence is a dish best eaten stale and moldy.
-
Hi Fanofthefab4
I wanted to make a post in this thread, I kind of feel your pain and anguish.
There are many on this site who have a deep love of The Beatles, it seems to go beyond just fandom.
I myself grew up with them and they are part of my pysche (whatever that is)
Some are just fans who like the music, but with others (like me, and I suspect you) it goes much, much deeper.
I can't explain my fascination with this band and I won't even try.
The best way to deal with people who denigrate them is really just to ignore them, they are entitled to their opinions but I actually feel sorry for them, they know not what they do......
Instead read sites like George Starostins, a man who really knows his music , don't dwell on the wannabes icon_good
http://starling.rinet.ru/music/index.htm (http://starling.rinet.ru/music/index.htm)
Hope this helps in some small way.
-
I'm glad this post has returned. I hadn't seen it before. I will say there's certainly a ton of reading involved. The links/references only lead to more in-depth reading on this topic.
I have had personal experiences with anti-Beatle people and I do not care to remember them. One of the reasons is how I was bullied by some of these people in addition their doing this in front of other people who made no effort to support or defend me. I hate it when observers (also friends) pretend to be unaware of what's going on. Nosy eavesdroppers who hear everything will pretend to have heard nothing if it means getting involved in a helping way. They're cowards and not real friends.
If I'm ever in the mood to re-live some of these experiences, I will post them.
Suffice it to say that anti-Beatle talk is usually not at all friendly or intelligent. You just have to develop a tough hide and let it go. What are you supposed to do when an ugly bully is screaming at you in your face and at the same time accuses you of being the bad guy in the whole thing?
Let it be - let it be. That's all I can think of to say (at the moment).
-
I'm glad this post has returned. I hadn't seen it before. I will say there's certainly a ton of reading involved. The links/references only lead to more in-depth reading on this topic.
I have had personal experiences with anti-Beatle people and I do not care to remember them. One of the reasons is how I was bullied by some of these people in addition their doing this in front of other people who made no effort to support or defend me. I hate it when observers (also friends) pretend to be unaware of what's going on. Nosy eavesdroppers who hear everything will pretend to have heard nothing if it means getting involved in a helping way. They're cowards and not real friends.
If I'm ever in the mood to re-live some of these experiences, I will post them.
Suffice it to say that anti-Beatle talk is usually not at all friendly or intelligent. You just have to develop a tough hide and let it go. What are you supposed to do when an ugly bully is screaming at you in your face and at the same time accuses you of being the bad guy in the whole thing?
Let it be - let it be. That's all I can think of to say (at the moment).
I think letting it go is by far the best option. Not everyone likes the same thing and I'm sure all of us at times casually dismiss an artist out loud without thinking that a fan of them might be listening. It'd get a bit tedious if every time that happened someone took us to task to argue why Milli Vanilli or whoever really was the greatest thing.
I used to be a little more bolshie with these types. In the 80s my then girlfriend had a friend who dismissed the Beatles as a little bop band. She was into Frank Sinatra etc. so my response was to ask her if she was her own grandmother. Bearing in mind that she said this when told I was a Beatle fan. Those instances always seems to be intended as more of a personal insult.
Since then I pretty much ignore it. Life's too short and you're never convincing anyone.
If the comment is framed more in a constructive critical way then that can be the opportunity for a fun chat about why you think they're wrong. But that's about all.
-
Lmfao. Reading this was a wild ride.
-
Lmfao. Reading this was a wild ride.
Oh, yeah; it always is!
-
.