easycure

not bad at all. 3.5 for me too

I really don’t think (forgive me if I’ve missed a good part of the discussion) that influence should be considered an absolute criterion. Of course it’s important, but absolutely not fundamental or even necessary: there are much more significant basic criteria, such as originality, innovation, personality, style, expressiveness... not necessarily what is expressive and original is also influential. And above all, it is by no means certain that an influential group is also qualitatively impeccable. As for Scaruffi, what I’ve read in the comments above suggests to me that those who criticized him did not find the right way to do so. Because Scaruffi has a systemic vision, whether you like it or not, there is absolutely nothing arbitrary; everything is logically interconnected. Sure, subjectivism exists, but it doesn’t seem to apply at all to either Bowie or the Beatles, whose profiles, whether Beatles fans like it or not, are quite accurate and unequivocal regarding the purely informative aspect (thus non-interpretative) concerning what various groups have done on specific dates. This invites much reflection in purely objective terms (because it is historical). The fact that the Beatles are not among the top 100 is a pure, simple, and consistent consequence of his analysis. There is really nothing provocative about it: one can only notice such consistency after having read a lot—really a lot—of his site. As far as I’m concerned, I disagree with him on millions of things (from Dream Theater to the Beach Boys, to all the rock of the '80s, to much punk), but what I appreciate is that he escapes from contingent issues where much of today’s (bleak) criticism gets lost and really knows how to create a powerful system of analysis at a historical-cultural level. I share this basic assumption: the necessity of a system. Then, he interprets the famous objective criteria mentioned above in often debatable terms (for me), but his systemic vision remains unequivocal as an approach.

Woodstock, that says a lot about the concept of avant-garde the Beatles had :-D ..thank goodness they changed their minds later on, though ;-D

forgive me enbar, but actually even in competent circles the idea of Helter Skelter is really nonsensical nonsense. Furthermore, the person who responded very thoughtfully cited dates and tracks from other bands that are much more likely to be considered precursors of hard rock. And there's not much to argue about the dates. Why rely on childish a priori notions like "many have said it"? As usual, one just needs to listen. It's something that often doesn't seem to get through to Beatles fans no matter what :-D

And indeed you said something silly, considering that I have been writing songs for about three years :-) ..given that you used terms suitable for a construction contract, I had to read between the lines: nonetheless, I fully grasped the essence, don't worry: the fact is that rather than coherence I would speak of relevance, and always, it is absolutely necessary to specify this, in expressive terms, not in terms of a weak and pointless exercise in style.. especially if we are talking about organizing with instinct, coherence is a completely contradictory word. Anyway, organizing with instinct seems to me to be entirely senseless. One arrives at a style through experience, trying and retrying and refining; even the band in question came from the most abject and useless rock'n roll, it took YEARS for them to expand; and certainly one arrives at style through culture. How can one get there with instinct? As such, it is entirely incoherent. It's a matter of logic. Bye!

But what does it matter? It’s obvious that "je garbava assai" George Martin. The fact is that it’s a production that heavily influences the final result.. as for today’s bands, your generalization is simply nonsense, nothing more. It makes no sense at all, that’s it.. and I repeat, if we want to talk about production that dictates what should and shouldn’t be done, the Beatles are absolute masters, whether they wanted it or not is another story.

I don't know what else Riccardo has "shoveled shit" about, but on what he wrote here, I'm not going after him at all; I almost entirely agree with him. The idea of guided groups in production is one of the biggest bullshit things I've ever read on this site, even worse than the earlier nonsense about how the Doors were influenced by the Beatles. Oh, by the way, if we want to talk about production guiding the Beatles, in this case, yes, they're masters.

what total nonsense. who said that? Pre-packaged the slint?? they invented a sound that has influenced hundreds of bands.. terrible

It's a discontinuous album, there's no denying that. But it's also the only one where at times the arrangement is truly conceived as something that changes the song in substance and impacts its expressiveness, rather than a pale complement that should create "psychedelia" on its own with some strange sound. From this perspective, it’s here that perhaps the peak of their interpretation of psychedelia itself and "artistic" pop is reached: I'm referring more to tracks like Bungalow Bill or Glass Onion. At other times, however, the impression I get is the usual one: rock in an "embryonic" state that remains tied to a past that is now well behind us. Nevertheless, one of the best.

The biggest nonsense I’ve read on this page is that the Doors would have acknowledged the influence of the Beatles. Good heavens, do people even listen to music? Instead of reading Rolling Stone, it would suffice to really listen to the Doors to understand that they have absolutely nothing to do with the Beatles. I absolutely agree with Riccardo: in Italy, there’s this “Beatles-centric” view that the whole world took from the indispensable Beatles. When in reality, a good part of this world couldn’t care less about the Beatles. Furthermore, in terms of "pop," the Beach Boys were enormously more influential in the States, and before them Elvis Presley, whose fanaticism is, as reported, immensely more pronounced than that towards the Fab Four. Not to mention that all of American rock, especially in the ’60s, is explicitly devoted to the blues tradition (which, if anything, arrived filtered to the Beatles; so one should speak of resemblance, not influence, between the Beatles and American groups). But in any case, talking about the “rock that matters”… what on earth do garage, American new wave, Sonic Youth, Fugazi, and other groups that have TRULY made the history of American rock have to do with the Beatles? Come on, just listen… and enough with these drifts from Unomattina :-D