DanVerlaine

Sorry for the inconsistency, I also added other things in the second post. In short, if you want, of those two PLEASE READ THE SECOND ONE., sorry for the oversight.

I accidentally posted twice, it's not megalomania, I thought I hadn't posted the previous one. In the second, I add about the email I sent to Scaruffi, a matter I wouldn't have wanted to discuss, because in theory it should be my business and everyone should be considered for what they say; however, if knowing this can help you be less biased against me, I'm happy for that, otherwise it doesn't matter. I promise not to write any further comments here.

John, have you been drinking?
I responded to you a bit annoyed simply because you reiterated statements I had already replied to; I’m not writing here for work, I don’t have all this time to spare.
I closed that way and I can apologize for it, because in the end it becomes a bit heavy to keep responding to people who cannot accept that you think differently and would like to incorporate you into the dominant thought.
I’m not making any Scaruffi-like discourse; you are the one who needs to fit someone’s thinking into a scheme, without realizing that I'm saying things that are considerably different from Scaruffi.
I sent Scaruffi a whole email explaining to him where I think he is wrong about the Beatles.
The fact that you quote Scaruffi everywhere is a symptom of a subordination you have towards him; free yourselves from this specter. Scaruffi says things, whether agreeable or not, according to a perspective, whether shareable or not, but what Scaruffi says can hardly be considered less interesting than the opinion of someone who, out of prejudice, believes that the Beatles are the greatest rock artists of all time.
You repeated to me twice, “you’ll have to acknowledge that they evolved” and I had already answered you, then “everyone has their influences” and I had already answered you.
I consider myself ignorant, so don’t attribute to me an arrogance that doesn’t belong to me.
Evidently, your fanaticism prevents you from making the most of your knowledge.
In reality, I enjoyed conversing with you; it’s just that I can’t digest petulance very well, and again, it’s not like I can sit here for 6 hours a day. I would have liked to comment on other records in these days, but with this quarrel about the Beatles, I wasn’t able to do so.
I already explained myself; I have an idea, you don’t share it, take note of it and stop.
P.S.: regarding the Saints, I understood you perfectly, but I interpreted it in a certain way to show you how you were arguing in a risky manner, because by making certain deductions from your writings, one could attribute to you a somewhat pro-fascist thought; you risked appearing as one who dogmatically upholds the untouchability of the myth.

John, have you been drinking?
I replied a bit irked simply because you reiterated statements I had already addressed.
I ended it that way, and I can apologize for it because, in the end, it’s frustrating to respond to people who don't accept that you think differently and would like to incorporate you into the dominant thought.
I’m not making any Scaruffi-style discourse; it’s you who feels the need to place someone’s thoughts into a schema, without realizing that I say things that are quite different from Scaruffi’s.
The fact that you cite Scaruffi everywhere shows a subservience that you have towards him; free yourselves from that boogeyman. Scaruffi says things, whether agreeable or not, according to a framework that may or may not be agreeable, but what Scaruffi says is hardly less interesting than the opinion of someone who, out of bias, considers the Beatles the greatest rock artists of all time.
You repeated to me twice, "you'll have to acknowledge that they have evolved" and I had already replied, then "everyone has their influences" and I had already answered that too.
I consider myself ignorant, so don’t attribute to me an arrogance that doesn’t belong to me.
Evidently, your fanaticism prevents you from using your knowledge to the best.
In reality, I enjoyed conversing with you; it’s just that I don’t digest persistent nagging very well.
I had already explained myself; I have an opinion, you don’t agree, take note of it and that's it.
P.S.: Regarding the Saints, I understood you perfectly well, but I interpreted it in a certain way to show you how you were arguing in a risky manner, because by making certain deductions from your writings, one could attribute to you a somewhat pro-fascist thought, and you risked appearing as someone dogmatically supporting the untouchability of the myth.

TEOMONDO
Were you referring to me?
No, because if you were referring to me, your comment is truly COMICAL ahahaha.
From your post, it seems that you don't like clichés and people who think in clichés, right?
Well...
You would agree that thinking in clichés is the very denial of thought itself, wouldn't you?
Exactly.
Now, assuming my comments are clichés, why do they bother you only when they come from me and not from those whose "thought" is steeped in them, the ones who consider themselves "the greatest of all"? Why don't you also contest Jhon who says things like "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" or (essentially) "nothing comes from nothing"?
So, is it all clichés that disturb you, or just those that do not align with your ideas and feelings?
Perhaps you overlook that some of the most popular clichés (regarding music) are:
"the Beatles are the greatest"; "the Beatles invented everything"; "the Beatles are the greatest rock geniuses of all time," etc., etc., etc.
Those who adhere to these redundant slogans should irritate you, and they should annoy even a Beatles admirer, precisely because clichés, by their nature, are always wrong. Even if they contain a grain of truth, they tend to oversimplify reality too brutally.

ANTIMO
I have nothing against catchy songs; Good Vibrations and You Never Can’t Tell, to name two very well-known ones, are among my all-time favorites, and I also really like A Day In The Life.
I listen to Travis every now and then, but I don’t think of it as listening to a brilliant band when I do; I don’t go around saying that Travis are the best.
I consider Travis a very modest band artistically, but at certain moments they give me what I need to hear.
Now, if Paola Rossi slips an avant-garde parenthesis into a silly little song, it's not that I’m going to open my mouth wide and applaud the genius of Paola Rossi (the one from "sole, cuore, amore"); rather, I might think it’s a wasted talent.
You mention David Thomas (who was a music critic); how do you interpret his thoughts?
I think Thomas means: “oh, look, they were catchy songs, but in SOME there were innovative things.”
In other words, David Thomas implicitly admits the mediocrity of the catchy song, but warns his colleagues by saying, “they were silly little songs, but be careful not to snub them, because some (some, NOT EVERYTHING WILSON WROTE) featured genuine avant-garde leaps.”
But I do not doubt this; not all catchy songs are the same, and indeed, I believe there are a handful of interesting pieces in the Beatles' career. However, we must clarify what was the rule and what was the exception in the Beatles' career, and the rule in their discography was represented by the trivial catchy song, easy to grasp.
I repeat, I have nothing against catchy songs; it’s just that if one attributes some significance to the words "trivial," "elementary," "predictable," I think that the catchy song (and the diminutive should suggest that if the catchy song is thus defined, there's a reason—no one would define Young's Ohio as a catchy song) is less appreciable than a deeper, more complex, more elaborate, more experimental, more refined song (unless simplicity takes on a certain meaning at some historical moment), the same reason why the cinema of Kurosawa or Kubrick is better than that of the Vanzina brothers. If you prefer the cinema of the Vanzina brothers, that’s your business, but don’t come and tell me that their cinema is worth as much as Kubrick's.
We should learn to be jealous of ourselves and ask, “but does this really please ME?... Is it worth as much as they say?”
If many could free themselves from the brainwashing they've undergone, it would become clear how some Beatles songs are no more valuable than "there are two crocodiles and an orangutan, two little snakes, a golden eagle..." and I bet you would never drive around listening to such a song, yet you would do so with some equally childish Beatles songs “because the Beatles are the Beatles” and anything they did has come down through the ages cloaked in artistry.
If a piece like Mechanical World (Spirit) had been written by the Beatles, it would be considered the greatest masterpiece of all time, the song that invented everything; now, since it was written by those half-baked Spirit guys, nobody cares.
It seems to me that if that song were placed on the White Album, it would sweep away 90% of the songs on that record and stand out as the clearly best piece. Maybe I’m the foolish one.

I just read your previous posts.
Look, please pay a little more attention to what I write.
Let me state that I don't want to convince you of anything; when you wrote that they evolved from Rubber Soul, I essentially agreed with you by saying that if there's a reason to listen to the Beatles, it's their varied songbook. Then we assess differently the nature and reasons for that evolution; for me, it was an adjustment, a conformity, not a "daring," you can see it however you want. Based on the music I've re-listened to from those years and the readings I've done, that’s how I view it.
History should be shared, but it’s not even on topics much more important than this, so I certainly won’t take the responsibility of explaining to you that things are different.
Uff, you keep trying to contradict me with generic and rhetorical statements.
The career of all artists has contradictions, just like each of our lives, but if your logic is "everyone's guilty, no one's guilty," know that I reject this way of thinking; guilt should be graded.
Then you say that every artist has their influences; what can I say… obviously!
But it's not that I blame the Beatles for having had influences; I oppose that large flock of people who think the Beatles were the first in everything, the best, the greatest, the avant-garde, the greatest geniuses in the history of rock. Well, all these beliefs are based on HISTORICAL FALSEHOODS; they are UNFOUNDED beliefs of people a bit too ignorant.
This happens because, on a psychological level (read a couple of books on mass psychology), many can’t separate popularity from ability, popularity from skill, popularity from artistic depth.
The fact that the Who burned their instruments at the end of concerts has nothing to do with the courage discussion I was making.
THE END, you like the Beatles, enjoy them, I don’t give a damn.

Sorry for the mistakes (oops, I always forget to proofread), at a certain point I meant: "INVESTIGATE," the rest, despite the errors, I think is understandable.
That's all folks.

continues from the previous...
Perhaps, like others, you find it difficult to understand the power that the media have to sell shit as chocolate (the Beatles weren’t shit, but they certainly weren’t chocolate either). The Beatles benefited from a war machine that handled their promotion; they were the first to exploit all the potential of the media to present themselves to the world. Is it possible that even in 2008 you haven't realized that advertising campaigns can work miracles? Even Beckham is now a legend, and can you tell me why? Is he the best? No. Is he the most handsome? There are millions like him, and I think any girl who isn’t blind could easily find hundreds of footballers just as good-looking or more than he is. The Spice Girls achieved a success that Van Morrison has never even come close to; Bublé, who mostly does covers, sells many more records than Nick Cave. Doesn’t this provoke some reflection? In the relationship between artistic depth and success, there is no meritocracy; there’s a whole series of factors that influence success. So, in this kind of world, let’s try to use our heads a bit; otherwise, we might end up believing that Coca-Cola is better than Brunello or that hamburgers are better than risotto with mushrooms. The popularity of the Beatles is a symbol of the power of advertising and marketing (which, for various reasons, was considerably more impactful back then than it is today). I’m sorry if I offend anyone’s sensitivities, but I believe we are called to express our critical opinions here; I don’t write to please anyone. As far as I'm concerned, this debate is closed. Do you love the Beatles to madness? Do you keep them in your wallet next to the Madonna? Good for you! Life and ears are yours.

Sorry John, I saw that you replied, but I'm writing this without having read what you said by choice, because the things I'm about to write I had already written to finish my response to your previous post.
I'm not replacing any myth with other myths; I'm simply stating what I think about the Beatles, according to my critical spirit. Sorry to say it, but defending the most popular MYTHS seems to me a futile mission; myths, as such, defend themselves, and their stature as myths will ensure their survival even against the fiercest criticisms. My two little comments certainly won’t destroy the Beatles. Moreover, it's not that I find the Beatles repugnant. You say that for you, myths are like Saints; well... I believe this might close our conversation, because by saying this, you implicitly admit to having limits in considering the Beatles critically.
You are basically saying that anyone who dares to say something against the Beatles commits blasphemy, which excludes the possibility that you can interpret any opinion about the Beatles other than an admiring one in the right way. No, the point you were making, if taken seriously, diminishes the Beatles, especially because if it is true, as it is true, that many talents have not had the fortune to express themselves, others, much more simply, have not enjoyed the success they deserved. So, limiting ourselves to praising those 7-8 big names is certainly not the best attitude for discovering all the talent that exists in the world. Because to find artists better than the Beatles, there’s no need to resort to the surreal; it would suffice to explore what was going on around the Beatles.