[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

If Nirvana had never gotten off of Sub Pop and everything else stayed the same, Nirvana would be a blip in musical history.

So would the Beatles by the way, if anything this is what really connects both bands. Neither thought they would become the biggest bands of their era, they were just bands making a go at it in the club scene, and because people really enjoyed their music they blew up! You'd be crazy if you thought Nirvana wasn't popular on the merits of their music, they weren't created or manufactured, their music just struck a chord with a lot of people and as we say in this era went viral.

Originally Posted by Severian

SuchFriends...

I'm not really arguing with you, man. I just know that Paul McCartney was the definition of chart ambition. John Lennon was a sneering, gritty, Snarky, angry man who felt that music should come from a different place. Sure he wanted people to like him. He couldn't believe his solo albums didn't match the successes of the Beatles. But he also went out of his way to sing about unnerving and uncomfortable shit.

I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I am not suggesting that John was changing his art to make it more commercially viable, rather that even while experimenting or producing art that was part of a sincere vision, John was still often interested it, concerned with, and even depressed about his sales, chart position, and critical acclaim. When his records were released, he would read articles and he would even frequently call up the label for sales/chart position updates. It doesn't mean he was selling out, or commercially focused, but it does mean he was at least thinking about it. He didn't just abandon these for a "devil may care" approach.

"Woman is the Nigger of the World"? Mother? Well, Well, Well? God? These are all songs where he spits at the world, the status quo, and empty pop culture. He definitely mellowed out toward the end, but listening to his "primal scream" era yowling, I can't help but think of Kurt Cobain's world sick larynx straining "All Apologies" chorus.

True, but the thing with artists is their art is like real life, it is not a singular vision. You can't define an artist by one song or even one album. While John often vented in his music, and indeed wrote many tunes with a kind of crassly sarcastic social commentary, it doesn't mean he had abandoned the world like some kind of post-hippie era John the Baptist. The guy was a complex figure. Again, I LOVE 1970s John Lennon by the way.

Both bands, no matter how different they are, were more cultural events than simple rock musicians.

This was never in dispute, what I have been arguing about is the idea that the Beatles music influenced the sound of the mainstream 1960s. I just don't hear it in other bands or records. Most definitely the Beatles were a huge culural influence, but I'm not sure we can say the same about musical sound and style (structurally speaking).

Btw: in all honesty Radiohead is definitely closer to the Beatles in the way their career has progressed, and the consistent quality (from a critical perspective) of their work. But they're not an event. They didn't change much of anything. They just went with the flow, and did more with their version of pop music than anyone else at the gold/platinum level. But will they ever have even one #1 single? Nope. Will they ever sell 10 million albums? Maybe OKC, in a thousand years. I guess if you take Radiohead's experimental take on pop and combine it with Nirvana's undeniable cultural magnitude, you probably have the makings of a Beatle like band.

I think the Pink Floyd/Radiohead comparisons have always been much more apt.

Also: 60's bands that sound like/admit to being influenced by the Beatles? Give me a fucking break!
The Monkees
Dave Clark Five

These are bands that were purposely constructed to imitate and copy the Beatles, they weren't sincere projects started by sincere artists who were sincerely inspired, so it doesn't quite count to having been "influenced by the Beatles" now does it?

Rolling Stones

BULLSHIT, the Stones were a straight up blues band, if anything, the Beatles started to sound more like the Stones.

Bob Dylan (what? Yes.)

What? No. Further, I dare say that both in 1963/64 AND also in the post-electric guitar upset, Dylan was MORE directly influential on 1960s music than the Beatles ever were (musically speaking)

David Bowie

Seriously now? Come on...

Elton John

Not really

Kinks

A bit here, but I think the Kinks had a muddier sound that sounded more like The Who than early Beatles

Beach Boys

Yeah right, suuuuuure they do

And there are bands today, specifically indie rock bands like Spoon, who have been more influenced by the Beatles than any other band.

I was never talking about today, or even the 1970s, very specifically I'm arguing that the Beatles from 1964-1968 didn't influence the sound of that time, just the culture and image.

But if you really want to talk about artist whose career trajectory is similar to that of the Beatles.... I'm sorry, but Kanye West has taken the pop chameleon, expedited evolution thing,

Meh, it is almost cliche for you to compare Kanye to the Beatles, and I'm surprised you didn't mention Jay Z who tried his hardest to go for that.

It should again be noted, I got no beef with the Beatles and I especially dig 1970s John Lennon. I'm just discussing the musical influence of the early Beatles, which I think has always been overrated because of all the hype and success that surrounded "Beatlemania" of that time. I would never intend to minimize the significance of the Beatles, we pretty much owe all greatest music in the 1960s to them, but not in the kind of direct way I think most people assume. Almost EVERY single band in the 1960s were INSPIRED by the Beatles, but I just don't think the SOUND of the music reflects a direct INFLUENCE.