Hitler learns about the Rolling Stone Greatest albums list

[Mike's Beard]

 

And, in my opinion, you're wrong about every single example that you bring up. In fact, outside of The Beach Boys, I'd probably say that The Beatles output is stronger than the rest of those bands' combined discographies. But, of course, that's a meaningless value judgement. Whether or not you and I think a band is better or worse than The Beatles is meaningless outside of our own personal interests. It certainly tells us next to nothing about whether the band was overrated. OK, so YOU like other bands better. Fine. How does one conclude from that that The Beatles were overrated?

Because I honestly think that there are dozens of artists who have made much better records than The Beatles. So to constantly hear/read them being praised as superior to all else, in my mind leads me to conclude that they are overrated.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

 

And, in my opinion, you're wrong about every single example that you bring up. In fact, outside of The Beach Boys, I'd probably say that The Beatles output is stronger than the rest of those bands' combined discographies. But, of course, that's a meaningless value judgement. Whether or not you and I think a band is better or worse than The Beatles is meaningless outside of our own personal interests. It certainly tells us next to nothing about whether the band was overrated. OK, so YOU like other bands better. Fine. How does one conclude from that that The Beatles were overrated?

Because I honestly think that there are dozens of artists who have made much better records than The Beatles. So to constantly hear/read them being praised as superior to all else, in my mind leads me to conclude that they are overrated.

I don't doubt that you honestly think that. But if you are up against the overwhelming majority of critics and the music listening public, and you insist on some stable notion of "rating," then isn't the more likely conclusion to draw that you are underrating The Beatles? Or do you think that what you like constitutes the norm and when public or critical opinion deviates from your personal taste, that's how you can conclude how much a band/song is being over or underrated?

[Pretty Funky]

I found another funny video: http://captiongenerator.com/31568/Hitler-reacts-to-Mike-Love-

This video pertains to Mike Love, previous arrangements, a notorious email, fact checking and lots more.  

Love the AGD reference. Surely OSD is behind that one.

[Lowbacca]

I found another funny video: http://captiongenerator.com/31568/Hitler-reacts-to-Mike-Love-

This video pertains to Mike Love, previous arrangements, a notorious email, fact checking and lots more. 

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

The Monkees sold more records than anyone else in 1967. And probably made more girls scream then too. I guess that makes them the best band of all time, whose output is greater than all other bands combined, more influential to English language and heritage than Shakespeare.

Apparently that's how that works.



Guys, I get it. Different strokes and all. But some of these claims are absolutely ridiculous. The amount of overwhelming, hyperbolic, unquestionable praise the Beatles get is ridiculous. The fact that they're so totally worshipped while other, just as talented bands are dismissed or ignored is insane.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The Monkees sold more records than anyone else in 1967. And probably made more girls scream then too. I guess that makes them the best band of all time, whose output is greater than all other bands combined, more influential to English language and heritage than Shakespeare.

Apparently that's how that works.

Interesting straw man construction. Do you seriously claim that more people today have heard or have heard of More of The Monkees than Sgt. Pepper despite the fact that the Monkees sold more records in 1967? The Beatles aren't influential to our culture (I'm not talking about the English language - Shakespeare's importance is far more reaching than that) simply because they sold a lot of records (far more than The Monkees have, incidentially, despite the arbitrary selection of the one time they didn't) - they are influential because they shaped the way the very culture thought about reality. Without the Beatles I would be hard-pressed to argue that the Western world would have been quite so cynical about certain power structures.

Guys, I get it. Different strokes and all. But some of these claims are absolutely ridiculous. The amount of overwhelming, hyperbolic, unquestionable praise the Beatles get is ridiculous. The fact that they're so totally worshipped while other, just as talented bands are dismissed or ignored is insane.

Yeah, and why is Einstein considered so great when there were so many other great scientists at the time? And people go on about Shakespeare but no one mentions Ben Jonson or Christopher Marlowe. Just because these people played a crucial role in shaping Western civilization as we know it, and just because they informed the very nature of our reality, that's no reason to make them seem more important than they actually are.

[Lee Marshall]

Nonetheless...Ol' Adolph chose Pet Sounds over Sgt Peppers.

And so do I.

The Beatles WERE all that though.  And several times/for several reasons.

NO ONE else in the music biz...even our heroes here...[sorry Adolph]...can legitimately make that claim.  [although they did really and truly create a myth about California which still has 5 or 6 of its centipede legs left to stand on.]

I prefer the Beach Boys and Brian...but I am in the minority.  In 8 short years the Beatles changed everything...and it wasn't a myth.

[alf wiedersehen]

What does "changing things" have to do with quality of music?

no never mind this is dumb

[Chocolate Shake Man]

What does "changing things" have to do with quality of music?

It doesn't except it's something that's tangible to evaluate. Quality of music is subjective - therefore you shouldn't even begin to talk about "overrated" or "underrated" when it comes to quality.

[Fire Wind]

Talking about it only a personal matter, I find the Beatles just wear thin after a bit.  I had a Beatles phase, like many, where I listened to them solely for a couple of years.  But it wore off and the appeal doesn't return.  Of course, I've had phases with lots of other bands, but the top ones among them, I can return to and their albums can hit me just as strongly, and, as time passes, kind of newly.  The Beach Boys have never really lost their lustre, and Dylan's works seem to grow as I do.  I find an inexhaustible quality with those two.  But the Beatles I find exhausted, and I've tried time and again, but I can't help being ultimately finished with them.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

The Monkees sold more records than anyone else in 1967. And probably made more girls scream then too. I guess that makes them the best band of all time, whose output is greater than all other bands combined, more influential to English language and heritage than Shakespeare.

Apparently that's how that works.

Interesting straw man construction. Do you seriously claim that more people today have heard or have heard of More of The Monkees than Sgt. Pepper despite the fact that the Monkees sold more records in 1967? The Beatles aren't influential to our culture (I'm not talking about the English language - Shakespeare's importance is far more reaching than that) simply because they sold a lot of records (far more than The Monkees have, incidentially, despite the arbitrary selection of the one time they didn't) - they are influential because they shaped the way the very culture thought about reality. Without the Beatles I would be hard-pressed to argue that the Western world would have been quite so cynical about certain power structures.

Guys, I get it. Different strokes and all. But some of these claims are absolutely ridiculous. The amount of overwhelming, hyperbolic, unquestionable praise the Beatles get is ridiculous. The fact that they're so totally worshipped while other, just as talented bands are dismissed or ignored is insane.

Yeah, and why is Einstein considered so great when there were so many other great scientists at the time? And people go on about Shakespeare but no one mentions Ben Jonson or Christopher Marlowe. Just because these people played a crucial role in shaping Western civilization as we know it, and just because they informed the very nature of our reality, that's no reason to make them seem more important than they actually are.

Umm. I think WWII and the Cold war did more to make the west "cynical to certain power structures" than the Beatles. I think it's grossly unfair and laughable to act like they created the counterculture single handed when in reality it had already been going on for 6 months to a year before they jumped on the bandwagon.

Einstein? A better comparison would be Edison. Someone who got all the glory and accolades while the superior genius, Tesla, goes unsung except to the people dedicated enough to seek him out.

By your guys definition, Miley Cyrus and Beiber are great art because they shaped our culture and so many people listen to them too.

[mtaber]

Wait till Adolph finds out that Hal Blaine is Jewish...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Umm. I think WWII and the Cold war did more to make the west "cynical to certain power structures" than the Beatles.

Really? If that's the case then why was their virtually no major reaction against, say, the Korean War or even the early stages of the Vietnam war when Kennedy was carrying it out? There was virtually no public opposition to these things. So by 1962, the cynicism that you see as coming out of WWII and the Cold War was, as far as I can tell, virtually non-existent. You don't begin to get a serious reaction against Vietnam until 1965 and even then it's a slow creep until 1968 - more than 20 years after the end of WWII.

I think it's grossly unfair and laughable to act like they created the counterculture single handed when in reality it had already been going on for 6 months to a year before they jumped on the bandwagon.

I didn't say they "created the counterculture" but they definitely helped create the kind of society that was prepped for counter-cultural acts. The minute that the kids went hysterical over these long-haired working-class guys who went against all the standard conventions of how public figures were supposed to act was the minute where it became a legitimate, mainstream social act to actively go against the kind of norms that had to that point been largely tacitly accepted.

By your guys definition, Miley Cyrus and Beiber are great art because they shaped our culture and so many people listen to them too.

I'm not sure how they have shaped our culture. Today, it's pretty rare that an artist can shape a culture - things have been far too commodified for that. You see, it's a nuanced and complicated issue.

By the way, I'm not saying The Beatles are an example of great art. I am simply saying it's a astounding absurdity to refer to someone as overrated who has had the kind of influence on culture that they have had. By the standards of the critical intelligensia, there isn't a single rock and roll band that would qualify as great art. You talk to some serious scholars of music and you tell them that people compare Mozart with Brian Wilson and they don't know whether to start laughing hysterically or weep.

[beacharg]

-edit- (worng thread) 

[joshferrell]

-edit- (worng thread) 

maybe Hitler will comment on this...

[Mike's Beard]

 Or do you think that what you like constitutes the norm

Clearly it's not.

when public or critical opinion deviates from your personal taste, that's how you can conclude how much a band/song is being over or underrated?

Well yes, how else does one form an opinion of a band?

We could argue just have much The Beatles helped shape modern culture but that has exactly zero to do with why Rolling Stone thinks that out of the ten best albums ever made five of them are by The Beatles. If that's not a definition of overrating something I don't know what is...

Just because 1000s of 12 year old girls the world over screamed like mad at the mere sight of them back in 1964 does not influence how I rank their work against other artists - I'm sorry, my brain just doesn't work that way.

I'm starting to think that we're not going to change each others minds on this one.. 

[bluesno1fann]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untergangers

Made a few videos myself, even got a page for my former YouTube page on the main wiki for Downfall Parodies. One of the videos includes his thoughts on The Beach Boys, among other artists. But I quit years ago, before I even joined this forum. The repetitiveness takes it's toll on you. Have no intention of going back.

[Mike's Beard]

Einstein? A better comparison would be Edison. Someone who got all the glory and accolades while the superior genius, Tesla, goes unsung except to the people dedicated enough to seek him out.

OT but Tesla wanted to supply the entire world with self renewing electricity for free. Oddly enough, no power company would fund his research.

[CenturyDeprived]

Umm... it's kind of a drag to visit a BB message board, and repeatedly see a thread with Hitler in the title at the top of the list of threads. Just sayin'...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

 Or do you think that what you like constitutes the norm

Clearly it's not.

when public or critical opinion deviates from your personal taste, that's how you can conclude how much a band/song is being over or underrated?

Well yes, how else does one form an opinion of a band?

I definitely don't form my opinion of bands this way. I could never think that if millions of critics think differently than I do that it must be they are who are wrong and me who is the true arbiter of what's good and what's bad. I like what I like, and I don't consider the possibility that if someone disagrees with what I like then they must be "wrong." To be honest, I think the very notion of "overrated" and "underrated" is one of the worst ways of evaluating anything and it's also very self-congratulatory.

We could argue just have much The Beatles helped shape modern culture but that has exactly zero to do with why Rolling Stone thinks that out of the ten best albums ever made five of them are by The Beatles.

I truly hope not. Cultural impact should have some bearing on how one evaluates art.

Just because 1000s of 12 year old girls the world over screamed like mad at the mere sight of them back in 1964 does not influence how I rank their work against other artists - I'm sorry, my brain just doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately, most criteria for evaluating music is meaningless. Certainly there is nothing in the world that could allow us to conclude that, say, The Kinks were better than The Beatles. What we do know is that The Beatles music is far more important than anybody else's on that list, with the exception of Bob Dylan who comes pretty close. And while I'm sure it's nice to reduce The Beatles importance to 1000s of 12 year old girls screaming, the reality is that they changed the very fabric of Western civilization in a way that no other band did in the 20th Century.

[Mike's Beard]

But again, you are arguing that massive cultural impact = 5 of the top 10 best albums of all time. Is it wrong for me to question journalists that claim that there was nothing better before or after The Beatles?

[baseball95]

These are honestly fantastic! there's a bunch of other music ones too

[Lee Marshall]

Rolling Stone has 5 Beatles albums in the all-time top 10?  I don't bother with Rolling Stone anymore.  It's been about 30 years since 'they' mattered to me even a bit.  So?  The Beatles have some GREAT albums.   Hard to pick the best.  Depends what day it is.  Rubber Soul?  Revolver?  Too much filler on the White Album to allow that to be considered.  #9 repeated 'til suicide becomes a consideration knocks it right out of the running immediately.  Abbey Road...Side 2 is pretty darned good but there are moments on side 1 that interfere.  Sgt Pepper?  Meaningful then...but due to 'effects' with a shelf life...maybe not.  So maybe its only Rubber Soul...or Revolver.  Ask Adolf.

The Beach Boys have a couple...Pet Sounds is glaringly obvious.  Summer in Paradise?  Maybe top 20?

There are well over 3,000 members here.  If we all submitted our personal all time top 10 albums lists for compilation by...some 'lucky' guy...I doubt that there would be 2 lists  the same.  If I gave 'him' my list tonight...I'll bet that it will have changed at least a touch by my next birthday.

The ONLY Top 10 that counts.  The only one that's right is yours.  [and mine]

And, of course, Adolf's.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But again, you are arguing that massive cultural impact = 5 of the top 10 best albums of all time. Is it wrong for me to question journalists that claim that there was nothing better before or after The Beatles?

Maybe I've missed a more recent list but the one that I have looked at shows 4 of the top 10 best albums. And, the fact is, someone has to be best. If there was a list of best plays ever written, I wouldn't be surprised if Shakespeare had 4 in the top 10, even if I may think there were plays that were better.

And it's not just journalists who are claiming this. The Rolling Stone list was decided by a very long list of contributors, including many musical peers, that included: Lou Adler, Beck, Rodney Bingenheimer, Hal Blaine, Jackson Browne, Solomon Burke, Jerry Butler, Jarvis Cocker, Wayne Coyne, Cameron Crowe, John Densmore, Dr. John, Fats Domino, Phil Everly, Chris Frantz, Richie Furay, Art Garfunkel, Gerry Goffin, Ellie Greenwich, Chris Hillman, Lenny Kaye, Carole King, David Leaf, Stephen Malkmus, Ray Manzarek, Christine McVie, Mo Ostin, Andy Paley, Johnny Ramone, Robbie Robertson, Rick Rubin, John Sebastian, Pete Seeger, Paul Shaffer, Allen Toussaint, Jeff Tweedy, Richard Wright, and many many others who made this decision collectively.

[Larry Franz]

There's also this gem for those who haven't seen it: "Hitler buys the new Beach Boys album"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0r72b9X3Fo

I found another funny video: http://captiongenerator.com/31568/Hitler-reacts-to-Mike-Love-

This video pertains to Mike Love, previous arrangements, a notorious email, fact checking and lots more. 

Thanks for posting both of these. I thought the "Hitler reacts" was especially good. Let's just hope Adolf enjoys NPP!