jewunit said:

Considering the Beatles came before the Doors and helped create a scene for them to thrive it that helps my argument.

Johnny Cash nor Coltrane became pop music after the Beatles.
In fact some would argue the Beatles helped destroy jazz's popularity. Pop music is much easier to grab onto than jazz, and the Beatles made some of the poppiest music ever when they first came about.

Johnny Cash isn't pop music.

All three sold less albums than the Beatles.

Johnny Cash's influence is much smaller on current pop than the Beatles.

Nirvana didn't have nearly the same influence on pop music that the Beatles did. I'm not denying their enormous influence though.

In fact, I'm not even sure your "counterpoint" makes any sense.

You could at least bring up Michael Jackson or boy bands that sold more record than the Beatles.

Edit: Suimush: Again I'll state that I never, in this thread, said the Beatles mad bad music.

---

KrishnaDreamer said:

well, apparently all rock music is crap.

---

Chespirito said:

And furthermore rock is inherently a simple type of music   There are people who create complex music like Zappa and so forth but its a very small percentage.  I listen to orchestral music when I need something more complex, rock is certainly not that.  I mean it was based off blues which is some of the most musically simple music in the past century

---

jewunit said:

Chespirito: I don't mean to imply that pop started with Beatles. Simply pop as we know it now. I think that can be inferred since my argument is about how the Beatles ruined music by creating the pop scene that we have now. It's a pretty undeniable fact, yet tons and tons of people who like the Beatles (especially younger people who are active in various music scenes for whatever reason) hate the state of pop music today.

---

I dont know what you mean here.  There was rock n roll pop music before the Beatles, hell Elvis was fucking huge.  There was pop during the Beatles like the Monkees etc..  Honestly Im not really sure how to respond to your points.  The beatles were an avant-garde band later in their life.  They were popular because they made excellent music.  If you are referring to their first few years before Rubber Soul?  Then yea they were a straight pop band, but I just dont see it as anything new...  I feel like you are glossing over the history of pop music and blaming everything on the beatles.  The beatles are not like todays pop because they were a real band, they played in trashy bars around Britain and Europe and were signed eventually.  They evolved into a very strange rock band   Modern pop music started in the 80's in regards to the corporate takeover of popular music

suimush said:

Chespirito said:

And furthermore rock is inherently a simple type of music   There are people who create complex music like Zappa and so forth but its a very small percentage.  I listen to orchestral music when I need something more complex, rock is certainly not that.  I mean it was based off blues which is some of the most musically simple music in the past century

---

zappa was awesome, but his solos made me think he was a spastic. theres no flow at all.

---

KrishnaDreamer said:

i've seen your posts in similar threads. i recall you saying the beatles were crap, then you got owned in that thread.

why don't you just not post in these types of threads, obviously you're allowed your opinion. but no need to antogonize people.

i mean, music is subjective, just because you say a band is crap, doesn't make it so.

people listen to pop music today, so what?

---

jewunit said:

Music isn't purely subjective either.

---

Quote:

My argument is the Beatles ruined music (specifically pop and popular music.)

---