Hal

Secondly, what does it mean "that I evaluate a posteriori"? That's precisely the point, you don't want to evaluate a priori, do you? A priori assessment is not an analysis but a prejudice; I've said it a thousand times. Finally, when you say "we need to qualify the influence," you are merely stating that judgments need to be parameterized, as I have always maintained. It's not about evaluation in and of itself. I – for example – brought up jazz not by chance. But I could provide a thousand other examples, such as the exponential growth of small rock groups following the Beatles throughout Europe (islands included) from 1965 onwards (300 in London in just a few months). And again... you talk about Italy (which could be debated) and the rest of the world? And then I never said they influenced more than so-and-so and what's-his-name (also because that seems like a somewhat pointless discussion, and we would need to see from which perspectives), I simply state that their influence is an undeniable fact. A song does not become a standard by chance or due to the skills of communication consultants. In short, appealing to a balanced judgment, the Beatles are not the best pop/rock group in the world, the most influential, etc., for me, but they are also not the bluff some want to believe; too many reasons deny that fact. And we are not talking about tastes. That's it.

But I imagined a response like that. It's a classic appeal to marketing, but it's a weak argument because it doesn't explain why the formula hasn't had the same success with others. It's a limited view of the phenomenon in my opinion. You can do all the advertising you want, but if there's no substance, the communicative effects are limited over time. This objection crumbles miserably in the face of the temporal span of interest in the group that crosses multiple generations, in my opinion. It doesn't explain it, in short.

Essentially, to say "The Beatles are a decent band with good tunes and nothing more" is a partial, reductive, and incomplete judgment of reality. In the end, behind this statement lies only a respectable opinion that says "I don't like them."

A few things: when Brad Mehldau still performs "Blackbird" today, just to give one example among many, how can we talk about bogus commodification? It’s not just a simple hum. Was Janis Joplin's "Summertime" a commodification of Gershwin? A standard becomes such and lives on when it is interpreted, and when it is interpreted it influences "the musical writing of countless artists." This is a fact. But why does a song become a "standard"? And what does "value in itself" mean? Every kind of evaluation goes through parameters; even the assessments I've read here are relativized valuations. Well, I've shown other parameters; I've broadened the discussion. Finally, regarding the issue of influence, I understand that the Beatles' influence might not please you, MyBloody, but it existed. The pop universe has confronted it widely and still does, all of it, in spite of those who consider the Beatles insignificant. Then I don’t get why you don’t simply answer the questions instead of constantly dancing around them. "How come these four guys wrote songs that are still alive today?" "Why did it work and endure for the Beatles and not for the others?" That's all.

Then the fact that we are talking about it so much here will mean something, right? And we aren't even fans!

"...to analyze how the music scene subsequently digested the Beatles phenomenon..." exactly, and this is precisely where I wanted to get to bogus, since this leads one to ponder the WHY of their becoming "standards." A question still unanswered.

Odradek, I agree with you, but notice that subtly it is precisely the socio-cultural impact that Scaruffi's analysis puts (in a sneaky way) into question.

Oh, I almost forgot to clarify something: I'm not a fan of the Beatles and their fans sincerely get on my nerves, including those who are the opposite.

"but the fact doesn't interest me at all" but unfortunately, if we have to do an analysis, it's an unavoidable topic; otherwise, we go back to "I like it"/"I don't like it," and then the discussion is over. Regarding the other groups, I flip the question: "Why did it work and endure for the Beatles and not for the others?" Lastly, as for the sociological "reactionary" reading of the Beatles' music, it's another big pile of nonsense that has the same argumentative flaws already pointed out (premises and consequences). By the way, the Beatles' music has had an evolutionary and disruptive impact in many contexts. I would talk more to those who lived through that period to understand what really happened. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the history of the Beatles from "Love Me Do" onwards underwent changes. The clean-cut Beatles of the early period are not the same as those at the end.

But on the table, there is still a problem to solve, a "why?". Why have these four guys written songs that are still alive today? How is it possible to ignore this fact when evaluating their music? How can such a measure of judgment be excluded? How is it possible not to consider the impact? I could understand this in the short term, but over such a long period? The fact that those "catchy little songs of two or three minutes," simple and as easy as one wants, are still alive after 40 years, what does that mean in your opinion? Doesn’t it raise the suspicion that there is a strength, a content in those melodies that needs to be explained? Many Beatles songs are today effectively "standards" just like "Summertime." Blackbird, for example, is a piece that has firmly entered the jazz repertoire. Why do you think that is? Marketing? But are we sure? Commercial music? But commercial music usually doesn’t have the strength to survive decades unscathed. If it was just a trend well-supported by marketing or a lucky formula built on circumstances, why hasn’t it died? And to this question, detractors do not respond. They dance around it, they evade it. This is where the reasoning weakens. The discussion is all here, not in "good/bad," not only in innovative/non-innovative in my opinion. That’s why I think that detractors actually start from their subjective judgment (as valid and legitimate as anyone else’s) and build a theorem around it to give it an appearance of objectivity (which, however, is not legitimate).