Unpopular music opinions

[Lincsong]

Like John Lennon could perform like this...

[video=youtube;CdYHivTvQCU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdYHivTvQCU&feature=related[/video]

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

Well, if we're going to make unwarranted comparisons. . .

Elvis ain't got half the charisma of ol' Cab.

[video=youtube;y8YQufG31Kc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8YQufG31Kc&feature=related[/video]

And while we're on the topic of Cab Calloway, this is one of my favorite performances ever. Sophie Tucker's original is good, and Bing Crosby's version ain't half bad, but this blows them both out of the water:

[video=youtube;ASR_5R_bjOw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASR_5R_bjOw[/video]

 

[Lincsong]

Nothing wrong with Cab. At least he wasn't wearing wome Tojo glasses and singing like a cat getting run over by a cement truck.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

My favorite Elvis performance BY FAR!!!

[video=youtube;m9saX9cF248]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9saX9cF248[/video]

 

[Rundquist]

Here’s an unpopular opinion for this thread. The Beatles are great, lol. I’ve listened to a lot of music growing up, and I mean a lot. As a kid I picked up on the Beatles from an older siblings. I also picked up on big band swing, classical, and what have you. As I got older I started to develop my tastes and I moved onto other types of music. To this day I have a very eclectic, broad taste in music. I only care to separate music into 2 categories now, good and bad (as Duke Ellington defined it). Obviously, my idea of what’s good and bad is going to differ from that of others.

Occasionally I’ll revisit something from my youth. Although I don’t play Beatle records much these days (they’re all permanently imprinted on my brain), once in a blue moon I’ll pull one out. They still sound good. They’re still vibrant. When they put out a compilation of their number 1’s some ten years ago, it shot to number one. People still felt connected to it (even those that had never heard it before). I can’t think of any artist (in history) whose music still resonates with the world some 40 years later, on that level. No other 40 year old recording is going to shoot to number 1, I'll tell you that much.

This doesn’t mean anybody has to like them. It’s easy to knock the most successful music group of all time. I even understand the impulse to dislike them, for any number of reasons. But their music has affected more people than anyone else’s on earth. The rest of mankind pretty much says you’re all wrong. lol

ps - Many times not agreeing with everybody else is a good thing. But in this case you guys are wrong.

 

[martinsantos]

Count Basie recorded an album with Beatles songs that was very good! The cover was probably a joke (Count with a lot of kids), but Basie's Orch is always a pleasure to listen.

 

[jamespowers]

I can’t think of any artist (in history) whose music still resonates with the world some 40 years later, on that level. No other 40 year old recording is going to shoot to number 1, I'll tell you that much.

You can't? I can:
[video=youtube;a8QksTKRYS0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8QksTKRYS0[/video]It hit number one in the 40s (20 years after it was written)and it hit number one again in 2001 with Celine Dion on the benefit Album entitled God Bless America---83 years after it was written by Irving Berlin.
There are hundreds of songs that have been and dozens of artists who are still listened to today that easily beat 40 years. Beethoven, Bach, Wagner and Mozart are just a few.
By the time the Dung Beatles songs get that old, they will be nothing but ashes upon the dung heap of history.

 

[Rundquist]

You can't? I can:
[video=youtube;a8QksTKRYS0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8QksTKRYS0[/video]It hit number one in the 40s (20 years after it was written)and it hit number one again in 2001 with Celine Dion on the benefit Album entitled God Bless America---83 years after it was written by Irving Berlin.
There are hundreds of songs that have been and dozens of artists who are still listened to today that easily beat 40 years. Beethoven, Bach, Wagner and Mozart are just a few.
By the time the Dung Beatles songs get that old, they will be nothing but ashes upon the dung heap of history.

You miss the point. I was not discussing song-writing merits. I was talking about the finished product, forever frozen in time. I would never put the Beatles up against the great American songbook. But their records sell, virtually untouched. I’m not talking about a new record of an old song.

Again, popularity doesn’t mean anything to me. It isn’t an indication of quality. But the Beatles have stood the test of time and will continue to do so, regardless of whether somebody has an ax to grind or not. Their music means something to people in general. Even if you hate them, this has to be acknowledged.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The difference there has more to do with the way radio has been programmed in the last fifty years than in any real comparison between the music of the pre- and post-Beatles eras. There was no such thing as "oldies radio" in the fifties, so you didn't have specialized radio stations playing nothing but Glenn Miller records, for example. But the way radio developed in the sixties, seventies, and eighties more than any other factor made the Beatles THE BEATLES in public consciousness. There was nothing like that in the Golden Era, so there's really no valid basis for comparison there.

 

[Rundquist]

The people that made the Beatles 1’s album shoot to number one, were not listening to oldies radio, trust me.

I wasn’t around in the 50’s, so I can’t really comment on the radio programming of the day, but I do know that there was a Glen Miller revival (probably spurned on by the Glen Miller story) and there was also a Dixieland revival going on.

If the record people thought that they could continue to make big money from older artists, they would certainly try. Nobody has to sell a Beatles record. They sell themselves.

Again, this is not a comment on the quality of the music. That’s up to everyone to answer him or herself. But don’t kid yourselves about the relevance of the Beatles to the everyday person in today’s society. Their music came and never left. The same can’t be said of other “acts”.

 

[jamespowers]

The difference there has more to do with the way radio has been programmed in the last fifty years than in any real comparison between the music of the pre- and post-Beatles eras. There was no such thing as "oldies radio" in the fifties, so you didn't have specialized radio stations playing nothing but Glenn Miller records, for example. But the way radio developed in the sixties, seventies, and eighties more than any other factor made the Beatles THE BEATLES in public consciousness. There was nothing like that in the Golden Era, so there's really no valid basis for comparison there.

Good points. Radio previously was an up to the moment thing.

 

[jamespowers]

You miss the point. I was not discussing song-writing merits. I was talking about the finished product, forever frozen in time. I would never put the Beatles up against the great American songbook. But their records sell, virtually untouched. I’m not talking about a new record of an old song.

Again, popularity doesn’t mean anything to me. It isn’t an indication of quality. But the Beatles have stood the test of time and will continue to do so, regardless of whether somebody has an ax to grind or not. Their music means something to people in general. Even if you hate them, this has to be acknowledged.

The music means what to who? What test of time have they withstood? Are they still #1 records right at this moment? No they aren't. Their time has come and gone. Their music probably means something to the people that originally bought it and they buy new copies because they either wore them out, the technology changed or they accidentally burnt them up with their bong.
If the Beatles records sell so well then why didn't they keep their rights to the records? Michael Jackson's estate has the rights. I wonder how much they are actually worth in real record sales and commercials slogging their wares with the mopheads stuff.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Don't get me wrong -- I don't really have strong opinons on the Beatles one way or another. I had little to no awareness of them growing up, because that wasn't the kind of music we listened to in my family, so the whole "phenomenon" of the Beatles is something that just isn't relevant to me. I do think "A Hard Days Night" is a very entertaining movie, though.

Lennon and McCartney wrote some nice songs, I'll admit, but so did Robin and Rainger and Dubin and Warren. But what I'm saying is that they were made THE BEATLES by very careful and forceful marketing, of a focused sort that simply didn't exist in the pre-rock music era. Had they not been made THE BEATLES by radio in the sixties, and kept in the public consciousness by oldies radio thru the seventies and eighties, they'd be irrelevant today. I think the actual merit of their music isn't the major factor in why they're still popular.

 

[jamespowers]

The people that made the Beatles 1’s album shoot to number one, were not listening to oldies radio, trust me.

I wasn’t around in the 50’s, so I can’t really comment on the radio programming of the day, but I do know that there was a Glen Miller revival (probably spurned on by the Glen Miller story) and there was also a Dixieland revival going on.

If the record people thought that they could continue to make big money from older artists, they would certainly try. Nobody has to sell a Beatles record. They sell themselves.

Again, this is not a comment on the quality of the music. That’s up to everyone to answer him or herself. But don’t kid yourselves about the relevance of the Beatles to the everyday person in today’s society. Their music came and never left. The same can’t be said of other “acts”.

Obviously you have access to data that I cannot find. So, tell us, how many Beatles records are sold every year as opposed to Elvis records and Glenn Miller records.
I know that Elvis has sold over one Billion billion record units worldwide, more than anyone in record industry history. Research is also underway to document his record sales achievements in other countries. It is estimated that 40% of Elvis' total record sales have been outside the United States. Not bad for a guy who never recorded in anything other than English and toured maybe 5 or six shows in a country other than the US. His record unit sales are also still piling up. His estate is worth more now than when he was living due to royalities and everything else he touched. If you want to talk relevance to the everyday person. It is him.

 

[Rundquist]

The music means what to who? What test of time have they withstood? Are they still #1 records right at this moment? No they aren't. Their time has come and gone. Their music probably means something to the people that originally bought it and they buy new copies because they either wore them out, the technology changed or they accidentally burnt them up with their bong.
If the Beatles records sell so well then why didn't they keep their rights to the records? Michael Jackson's estate has the rights. I wonder how much they are actually worth in real record sales and commercials slogging their wares with the mopheads stuff.

Those were young people that made that hits collection shoot to number one. It’s been said that the Beatles catalogue is the single most valuable collection there is. Their catalogue was sold from underneath their noses, by their manager. Again, I’m just presenting the facts.

 

[jamespowers]

Those were young people that made that hits collection shoot to number one. It’s been said that the Beatles catalogue is the single most valuable collection there is. Their catalogue was sold from underneath their noses, by their manager. Again, I’m just presenting the facts.

McCartney was outbid by Jackson. They knew. It just wasn't worth it to him.

 

[Rundquist]

Don't get me wrong -- I don't really have strong opinons on the Beatles one way or another. I had little to no awareness of them growing up, because that wasn't the kind of music we listened to in my family, so the whole "phenomenon" of the Beatles is something that just isn't relevant to me. I do think "A Hard Days Night" is a very entertaining movie, though.

Lennon and McCartney wrote some nice songs, I'll admit, but so did Robin and Rainger and Dubin and Warren. But what I'm saying is that they were made THE BEATLES by very careful and forceful marketing, of a focused sort that simply didn't exist in the pre-rock music era. Had they not been made THE BEATLES by radio in the sixties, and kept in the public consciousness by oldies radio thru the seventies and eighties, they'd be irrelevant today. I think the actual merit of their music isn't the major factor in why they're still popular.

I'd have to disagree. Regardless of marketing forces, regardless of what one thinks of their talents, Beatle records resonate with people, even today.

 

[jamespowers]

I'd have to disagree. Regardless of marketing forces, regardless of what one thinks of their talents, Beatle records resonate with people, even today.

Proof?

 

[Rundquist]

McCartney was outbid by Jackson. They knew. It just wasn't worth it to him.

Again, the catalogue sold from underneath his nose. We're kind of getting away from the topic as well, don't you think? McCartney owns a good chunk of the great American songbook. He doesn't go on tour and sing songs from it. The point being that the Beatle catalogue is valuable. He was hoodwinked a bit.

 

[Rundquist]

Proof?

My eyes and ears. I interact with people sometimes in the non-cyber wold. I read other things besides the lounge. lol