Just for the sake of balance, I'll just say that that Electrical Storm record, regardless of the context, is dull as piss these days. I don't mind the Oram/ Derbyshire re-issues, but AES just seems like second-rate concréte, a novelty record that should remain so.

And Beefheart is nowhere near as clever as his acolytes make him out to be.

EDIT: There's another point actually - that of when people say 'in the context of [x]'. I often find that saying 'it was revolutionary at the time' is analogous to the 'well, black people have the vote, therefore what are they whinging about now?' argument. In 2009 (as Marras says) it's singularly unimportant how 'revolutionary' revolution #9 sounded nearly 20 years before I was born - it's a turd and it's filler and I don't need to care.

Beatles really are worthless and irrelevant in 2009.

This argument also annoys me (while I generally appreciate Jeremy's posts) - there is, was, and ever shall be legions of great pop groups. Pop did not begin and end with fucking Sgt Peppers.

To my mind, just this song alone shits on the entire recorded output of the Beatles before it even gets to the chorus. The Beatles may have defined a certain sense of pop, but they didn't invent Elvis, or Motown, or country, or Bluegrass, or doo-wop, or jazz, or the blues, or, for that matter, heavy metal, hard rock, punk or any number of other things.

And this is another form of bollocks that pisses me off - 'you couldn't possibly disagree with me, so you must be trying to be cool'. I can't tell you how many times I've listened to the whole Beatles back catalogue and every single time I've gone 'but this is just shit'.

To summarise my irritations - like the Beatles all you like, but the more people serve to over-inflate their actual importance in the world, the more it irritates people that don't like them (who are apparently a minority, but I put that down to the need of men to shout about things).

Holy shit, don't listen to the recording DOG POUND FOUND SOUND. It's 2 1/2 hours of dogs crying!

Incidentally, since Glice has brought up annoying arguments, I posted this on another site:

"I don't mind people liking the Beatles, though. Good for them. What I don't like is the obligation of respect for the Beatles influence or originality that is expected regardless of whether you like them or not. It then follows that if you dislike them in spite of your recognition of their "greatness," then your opinion of their music is wrong out of either ignorance or vanity. As unintuitive as it sounds to some, popularity (or lack thereof) proves nothing of the quality of music. It's all yet another attempt by people to force culture from music."

Then some person responding about how the Beatles' influence and originality are fact. To which I reply:

"It isn't a question of whether they are influential and original or not but whether these qualities are inherently valuable or not. In an abstract sense, they are, but the tactic used has this abstracted cultural-historical significance bypass the variability of individual taste. While this significance may indicate that an individual is more likely to enjoy the band, it is erroneous to attribute right and wrong to the individual."

All fair points, I guess I should restate mine a little.

I think more people should at least respect what the Beatles did for music. Saying such things as "They didn't do anything for music" is absurd to me personally. I really won't say anything more because the Beatles are one of those bands that if you enjoy, you enjoy. If you don't like them, then you're probably not all of a sudden going to have a crush on them, even with their records finally being remastered.

The Beatles annoy me a lot, but it doesn't exactly have anything to do with them as much as it does their status, as weird as that sounds. My dad has told the same Beatles stories for years and seemingly forgets he ranted on it for hours the last time we talked. I hate kids who say how music was better back then with the Beatles yet have "I Want To Hold Your Hand" on their iPod and you mentioned Revolver or the White Album and they have no clue what you're talking about (And probably own a Beatles jacket that they bought from Wal-Mart). Bands who name themselves after a Beatles song (Be more original!). And more recently, kids who bought guitar hero because they want to play the couple Beatles songs they know in it (The other 82 songs be damned). My only reassuring thought is they play and like the songs they don't know from them so they actually buy a couple of their records.

Sorry for the rant. I now feel like a grumbly old dad/grandfather.

~Jeremy~

2 words:
Within Without You
I Want You (she's so heavy)
Tomorow never Knows

if people hear these songs for the 1st time through the re-issues it'll all be worth it. If you've got the albums allready or dont like the beatles or dont care, then dont worry about it

I'm not going to respect what the Beatles did for music until one of you Beatles fans explains to me precisely the importance of Domenico Scarlatti, Thomas Tallis or John Dowland.

The point being that the Beatles are not the only people who were ever important, and you'll rarely find a Tallis fan ranting about people 'not respecting his position'. To summarise, they're all massively important, but I, and no-one else, cares if you don't recognise this.

You've just reminded me of something...

The Beets are one of the most important bands of all time in my opinion.

Of course there are other people that are important within music. There are many that are more important. In the context of a SY messageboard though, The Beatles have a far more direct relevance than someone like Thomas Tallis has. That's not to say that people should feel pressured into liking Strawberry Fields Forever any more than they should Tallis' psalm chants. I'd even go as far as to say that Beatles fans should maybe be aware of the importance of Tallis - if only via someone like Vaughan Williams. I'm just not sure how relevant he is to the SY universe. I admit to not knowing the first thing about Scarlatti or John Dowland and if they had a more direct impact on that universe then fair play, but in the case of Tallis (as important as he is to music, English music and, according to McCartney, his own attitude towards English music) I just don't know how important he is to SY's sphere of influence.

I Want You (She's So Heavy) is my fave.

LOVE IT
plus the up pick guitar skree at the beggining of happiness is a warm gun

Beatles rule. if they are not to your taste that is allright. no one cares whether or not you like the beatles. But respect is due, and if it is given by nearly every single one of the Beatles contemporaries and peers, from the Beach Boys to Lemmy from Motorhead who called them "the greatest rock band ever" after seeing them perform in hamburg, to Ozzy to The Stones, and on and on and on then it is worth one's time to accept the FACT that the Beatles were and are HUGE, both in the vacuous pop celebrity status, as well as in the songwriting genius status.

I need a fix cuz I'm goin down....

Dowland is huge recently as there have been a resurgence of playing his work, by lutists, and by period orchestras.
Scarlatti cursed my ears by writing so much goddamn harpsichord music. I fucking hate harpsichord.


BUt this i dumb as you would not ask a board composed of classical music fans to expound on why the beatles are good before you accept their statements of Scarlatti's greatness.

I agree with yr statement above glice. people take the beatles personal, but so what?
I take sonic youth personal. let that be my error then.

Herr Rail: fair points, but I'd maintain that Beatles seem to insinuate themselves upon far more of the musical landscape than they properly belong to. You're right that their influence is going to be distorted on SYG, but my point spreads further than the confines of this message board (hence I'm having the same argument on other message boards. Myth of Sisyphus etc).

Big gay Rob: I don't care about any of the Beatles' peers that you mention. There are narratives outside of the Beatles'. That's all I'm saying. Respect is due within a narrow context. With the Tallis bollocks I was wittering about I was trying to illustrate that SYG and the Beatles in general operate within what is a narrow context.

Abbey road is my far away favorite. Magic is great to and so is Revolver don't care much for the rest.

I think Tallis is a perfectly relevant example. It's just coincidental that I heard about him through my interest in The Beatles and, more specifically, Macca. He was the one who talked about how he got into Tallis through Vaughan Williams, and so on. It's clear that the Beatles influenced Sonic Youth but that there were certain aspects of them that understandably had no impact at all. So even given The Beatles significance within popular music, Tallis is an example of how they've never been influencial in their entirety. The Tallis thing is far more likely to be of relevance to fans other band's influenced by other aspects of The Beatles - say Radiohead.

Something I find quite interesting about the Beatles' shadow of influence is that you can get three bands: Sonic Youth, Radiohead and Oasis. All of them have been influenced by The Beatles in a very direct way and yet they're all very different from one another, clearly picking up on very different aspects within the same band. Compare that with bands that've been influenced by The Stones or Led Zeppelin who tend to all sound rather alike in that they generally all pick up on the same things. That doesn't happen anywhere near as much with The Beatles.

Not a major point, just saying.

I do agree.
It is our myopia, our narrow field of view.
the same way everyone says Michael jackso was the greatest entertainer ever and that he sold so many records etc.
it only seems that way because he was at the right time to take advantage of the monolithic recording indurstry. Michael Jackson a "greater" entertainer than Caruso? Than Pavarotti? than the greatest dancers, musicians, actors of history?
I say "bitches please."

as far as scope of influence, the Beatles hold the record for most recorded cover versions of their songs. They are recorded by bands and performers from the entire range of music, bluegrass, soul, classsical, jazz, rock, punk, country, folk, whatever.
that is something undeniable.

lol @ big gay rob

I only liked the Beatles when they were high on PCP, as
mentioned in their song, Priscilla in the Cave of Platinum.

Funny story - My Dad, to this day, bless him, swears that that song has absolutely no drugs connotations. "Laugh on, Priscilla" I say. Ironic, as Priscilla is my Dad's middle name.

I don't like the chipmunk vocals on "Atlas"

Beetles in my carpet
under my feet
they come out when they eat
Beetles in my carpet
under my feet
they come out when they eat
Beetles in my carpet
under my feet
they come out when they eat

I think there is a far bit of projection in this statement.

No I think he's totally right.

Actually, this is a major point. & fuck anyone who doesn't get it.

Just saying.

Revolution number NEIN.

I never heard either Sonic Youth or Radiohead cite the Beatles as a major influence.

I have never heard any good band cite the Beatles as a major influence.

In one book about SY I read (I don't remember the title, but it was made in the EJST&NS period) SY members made references to the Beatles a lot.

As for Radiohead Thom Yorke said in multiple interviews that he listened to the Beatles records a lot, and Ed' O Brien is also a big Beatles fan.

You are kidding right ?

Well I know you're not but whatever :D

I can't hear much of The Beatles in SY either. That's not to say they are not an influence of some sort on them, though.

I guess The Velvet Underground are influenced by the Beatles, too?

I think we should make the distinction between a conscious influence on songwriting and just listening to a record on their off time and absorbing it through osmosis.

Then again, maybe the Beatles are responsible for both bands' less interesting output?

Hahah. I think you're onto something there, pbradley!

"Yeah, sorry about that record. We were listening to lots of Beatles at the time of recording -- what were we thinking? I mean, Rocky Raccoon -- jesus. We should've known better!"

I have a practice recording of Lou reed at the factory playing the riff of ''daytripper'' for about 10 seconds. It surprises me since I always assumed the beatles were hated by vu.

I think it's fair to say that both Sonic Youth and Radiohead are less influenced by the Beatles in terms of musical reference points than say Oasis (who ultimately descended into being little more than a tribute band). I think what they did pick up on far more than Oasis though was The Beatles' sense of picking up on ideas that might not immediately seem obvious for a Rock band to pick up on and being able to frame those ideas within a Rock context. Whatever anyone might think of The Beatles' output, I don't see how any open-minded band could fail to be at least inspired by what The Beatles managed to achieve, especially at a time when this was considered far from the norm.

So the Beatles are the origin of open-minded songwriting in popular music?

Fucking Christ.

I don't remember ever saying that, and I'd be stupid if I did say it.

Then why is it The Beatles' sense of picking up ideas and not just a trait of conscious songwriting? Why are Sonic Youth and Radiohead picking up from them and not for themselves?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'conscious songwriting'.