Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Something Doesn’t Make Sense | JasonCollette.com

Ouch!

Not voting for Raines and Martinez also feels totally unfair. I just never thought of them as Hall of Famers. They fail the “I know it when I see it” test.

Why, then, did Raines pass that same arbitrary test for you last year when you voted for him?

I have never before voted for Raines or Trammell, but I’m doing it this year as kind of a Roids Backlash. Raines was a switch-hitting speedster who won a batting title, stole 808 bases, and scored 100 runs in a season six times. He had a little pop (170 homers), too.

Last year, your ballot looked like this: Jack Morris, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, and Curt Schilling. This year, Raines and Trammell fell off your ballot, despite five empty spots on it because…..the darts you threw against your cubicle wall landed on different spots?

Dan, please put some effort into your ballot next year. The integrity, character, and the contribution of your industry should demand it.

Jim Furtado Posted: December 29, 2013 at 07:26 PM | 190 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: ballot confusion, hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. Cooper Nielson Posted: December 29, 2013 at 10:36 PM (#4626029)
I have never before voted for Raines or Trammell, but I’m doing it this year as kind of a Roids Backlash. Raines was a switch-hitting speedster who won a batting title, stole 808 bases, and scored 100 runs in a season six times. He had a little pop (170 homers), too.

I guess this is an excerpt from CHB's 2012 ballot so it's probably not worth commenting on (or was commented on last year ad nauseam), but it shows a peculiar kind of logic, considering:

1. PEDs were available in Raines' era.
2. PEDs, in theory, could help a basestealer (/sprinter) just as much as a slugger. (Or were Ben Johnson and Marion Jones just bulking up to hit some balls at the batting cage?)
3. Raines has some illegal drug use in his history.
4. Raines was quite muscular and his nickname was "Rock."
5. Raines had a pretty big HR spike in 1993 at age 33 (25.9 AB/HR was a new career best, topping his 1987 season when the entire league had a HR surge).

It's hard to see how voting for Raines over, say, Jeff Bagwell is a sensible "Roids Backlash." I don't know (or care) if Raines ever took PEDs, and I'm certainly not trying to say that Raines took PEDs and Bagwell didn't -- I obviously have no idea. But based on the "evidence," doesn't that seem just as possible as the other way around?
   2. Shock Posted: December 29, 2013 at 11:17 PM (#4626078)
Trolling trolls will always troll. The attention you're giving him makes all his efforts a success.

It makes me sad to watch my fellow stat-nerds fall into the same traps over and over again.
   3. ptodd Posted: December 30, 2013 at 01:15 AM (#4626162)
Pretty much everyone had a HR spike in the steroid era. Tony Gwynn hit a career high number of HR at age 37 in 1997. The ball was juiced, and still is, which was why BABIP also jumped at the same time as HR's which are still at historical highs (down about 5% from the pre-testing steroid era taking into account the higher K rate due to the expanded zone)

As for Raines passing the moral character test playing the game with a vial of coke in his pocket, LOL. I mean, I am just so tuned out on the HOF now I don't care anymore. How many ways can I spell irrelevant.

One of the HOF voters (Pete Abraham) actually admitted to flipping a coin on Clemens and Bonds. He is ok with steroids but knows his vote is wasted, so he decided only to waste one on Bonds or Clemens and flipped a coin to decide which one to waste a vote on. LOL. I mean, I applaud the guy for giving a pass to steroid users in principle, but the execution is ludicrous.
   4. cardsfanboy Posted: December 30, 2013 at 08:56 AM (#4626221)
Trolling trolls will always troll. The attention you're giving him makes all his efforts a success.

It makes me sad to watch my fellow stat-nerds fall into the same traps over and over again.


Provide better fodder in the off-season.... people complaining about people talking about the idiotic ballots need to shut the F- up or provide a better outlet for their fellow stat nerds.

It's the off season, it's hof voting season, what else is there to talk about for mlb baseball fans? The acquisition of a backup outfielder for a team? Seriously get off your high horse and join in the discussion or go and watch a crappy NFL game in which they completely forgot there was this thing called defense. (and I assume anyone with the brains to show up on this website, has too much intelligence to bother with basketball....although if they did, they would brag about watching NCAA garbage and not liking actual talented players play in the NBA....while listening to Pavement)

I mean, I am just so tuned out on the HOF now I don't care anymore. How many ways can I spell irrelevant.


another pavement fan.... go enjoy being morally superior to the rest of us who enjoy talking about baseball..watch grass grow(or as some of you call it, enjoy the 12th most popular sport in America called soccer and pretend it's competing with hockey in your fantasy world)

   5. John Northey Posted: December 30, 2013 at 10:00 AM (#4626239)
Heh. This is a funny one, pointing out super-obvious issues such as who the writer voted for the year before vs this year and showing how he has forgotten who he voted for and why.

I do find it weird when I see a writer say Tim Raines didn't look like a HOF'er when he played. I was around in the 80's and boy did Raines look like and play like a HOF'er throughout. His start to the 1987 season is legend - kept out of the game in April due to collusion (he was wanting to play for San Diego at a cut rate but not quite as cut rate as Dawson accepted in Chicago) he came back, no spring training, with a game for the ages, 4 for 5 including a triple, a stolen base, and a grand slam in the 10th inning to win it. The Expos were 8-13 when he arrived, 83-58 (best in the National League) after. Many Expos fans wonder what if he was allowed to sign April 1st instead of May 1st. To top it off he was 3-3 at the All-Star game (strangely, his last ASG) stole a base and drove in the only runs of the game.

One can only wonder what Raines might have done had he not had to spend his prime in Montreal on rock hard turf. To say he didn't seem like a HOF'er in his prime is just foolish. Claim he didn't last long enough, or do enough you might have a case but don't say he failed the eyeball test as very few in the mid-80's felt he wasn't a future HOF'er.
   6. Cooper Nielson Posted: December 30, 2013 at 11:42 AM (#4626302)
Claim he didn't last long enough, or do enough you might have a case

Agreed, and even that turns out to be a fairly weak argument, as Raines played in 23 major league seasons and didn't retire until he was 42. Sure, he wasn't a full-time regular after age 35, but he was an excellent part-timer with the Yankees and got up to 2,605 hits -- more than, among others, Ernie Banks, Reggie Jackson, Joe Morgan, Richie Ashburn, Todd Helton, or Frank Thomas.

The strongest argument against Tim Raines right now is that are perhaps 10-12 more deserving players on the HOF ballot. But for at least a few years in the mid-'80s, he was in the "best player in the game" discussion and definitely "looked like" a future Hall-of-Famer.
   7. Esoteric Posted: December 31, 2013 at 12:53 AM (#4626936)
What bug crawled up CFB's rear end today?

And what's with the random digs against Pavement? Did I miss a discussion somewhere? They're the greatest band of the 1990s. I assume you don't like them or something? That's fine, if so, but it's not like anyone around here is oppressing you for holding that opinion.
   8. PreservedFish Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:33 AM (#4626942)
CFB is more of a Def Leppard type of guy, if memory serves me right.
   9. vivaelpujols Posted: December 31, 2013 at 05:43 AM (#4626982)
They're the greatest band of the 1990s.


Nirvana is clearly ahead of Pavement, but they are pretty much the only one (in the 90's). Pavement's a great second tier band along with Modest Mouse, Radiohead, Elliott Smith and Dinosaur Jr. (holy #### the 90's was good for music).
   10. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: December 31, 2013 at 06:01 AM (#4626983)
another pavement fan.... go enjoy being morally superior to the rest of us who enjoy talking about baseball..watch grass grow(or as some of you call it, enjoy the 12th most popular sport in America called soccer and pretend it's competing with hockey in your fantasy world)


If you think hockey is still a major sport in the US, you're the one being delusional. NASCAR replaced it as the 4th major sport the last time it went out of business (still well behind NFL/NBA/MLB, there are really only three major sports, but NASCAR is fourth in the pecking order and would do well if it were electoral voting though it would probably lose many of its states to college football.)

I think it bears repeating: most of the writers talking about rumors on e.g. Bagwell are repeating locker room chatter that was likely off the record and therefore unprintable in legitimate articles. In some cases the consensus might be wrong, but I suspect the writers have a lot more information from a lot more people closer to the players in question than they report and than we generally believe. It's the HoF, you don't need to meet judicial or even journalistic standards of proof to vote.

I now feel very dirty for implicitly defending CHB, who is a hack and a nutjob and a moron.
   11. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 31, 2013 at 09:54 AM (#4627006)
Nirvana is clearly ahead of Pavement, but they are pretty much the only one (in the 90's). Pavement's a great second tier band along with Modest Mouse, Radiohead, Elliott Smith and Dinosaur Jr. (holy #### the 90's was good for music).


Concurred, for the most part. I think Pavement is somewhere in the second tier. I also think Nine Inch Nails is criminally underrated.
   12. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 31, 2013 at 10:27 AM (#4627029)


Concurred, for the most part. I think Pavement is somewhere in the second tier. I also think Nine Inch Nails is criminally underrated.


All I know is that The Doors were the best band of the '60s.
   13. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4627040)
All I know is that The Doors were the best band of the '60s.


The Doors are equivalent to Pearl Jam. OK, but crazy overrated. The Ryan Howard of Music.
   14. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4627150)

All I know is that The Doors were the best band of the '60s.



Only the chronic contrarians consider anybody but the Beatles the "best band of the '60's". It's the same people who view somebody other then Babe Ruth the greatest player of all-time.
   15. PreservedFish Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:15 PM (#4627157)
We had a thread here years ago where the community broadly agreed that The Doors were very overrated.

Cardsfanboy has a peculiar talent for making himself sound like an ass when he talks about culture, such as the time that he claimed that Indian food and sushi were conspiracies of the coastal elite, or something.
   16. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4627174)
The Doors are equivalent to Pearl Jam. OK, but crazy overrated. The Ryan Howard of Music.


Come on, they defined that era. Next you are going to tell me that mayo is 'ok, but crazy overrated. The Ryan Howard of Condiments'. Although that would explain Howard's size...
   17. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:31 PM (#4627177)
All I know is that The Doors were the best band of the '60s.


Skin color aside, from appearances Morrison was headed toward Howardian girth when he breathed his last.
   18. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:34 PM (#4627179)
Pavement's a great second tier band along with Modest Mouse, Radiohead, Elliott Smith and Dinosaur Jr. (holy #### the 90's was good for music).


None of those would make my top, I dunno, 500, but Pavement definitely gets points for Slanted & Enchanted & Westing.

What bug crawled up CFB's rear end today?


Detectives believe alcohol was involved.

CFB is more of a Def Leppard type of guy, if memory serves me right.


Detectives believe a complete lack of hearing is involved.
   19. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: December 31, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4627183)
and Crooked Rain and Wowee Zowee! Fruck this noise. They were great.
   20. vivaelpujols Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:28 PM (#4627275)
The Doors are equivalent to Pearl Jam. OK, but crazy overrated. The Ryan Howard of Music.


Agree!
   21. vivaelpujols Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:30 PM (#4627276)
Only the chronic contrarians consider anybody but the Beatles the "best band of the '60's". It's the same people who view somebody other then Babe Ruth the greatest player of all-time.


I think Pink Floyd craps on the Bealtes, but they were probably more of a 70's band.
   22. tfbg9 Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:35 PM (#4627277)
Pearl Jam sucks.

And Def Leppard CFB? C'mon. Really? Are you sh1ttin' me? Moulty* was bettah! *




*I wonder if he evah' found a real girl.
   23. Nasty Nate Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:35 PM (#4627278)
The Doors/Pearl Jam thing doesn't really work because the band basically died with Morrison after only 6 years and Pearl Jam is at 23 years and counting of touring and releasing music.
   24. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4627281)
I think Pink Floyd craps on the Bealtes


Authorities believe alcohol was involved, but the greatest band of all time is dropping the charges against Floyd (who are more of a 70s band and great in their own way).
   25. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:38 PM (#4627282)
The Doors/Pearl Jam thing doesn't really work


I am talking about hype versus quality, not the arc of the band. And I am avoiding the obvious cheap shot at Pearl Jam, so I get some credit for that I think.
   26. Nasty Nate Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:49 PM (#4627289)

I am talking about hype versus quality, not the arc of the band. And I am avoiding the obvious cheap shot at Pearl Jam, so I get some credit for that I think.


Fair Enough.

The arc of the band is like the TV show 'ER': Tons of hype and huges sales/ratings right at the beginning, and then continuing for years and years with no one paying attention except the diehard fans.
   27. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 31, 2013 at 03:53 PM (#4627292)
Only the chronic contrarians consider anybody but the Beatles the "best band of the '60's". It's the same people who view somebody other then Babe Ruth the greatest player of all-time.

Some people don't like the Beatles; get over it. I think they're OK. They've got some decent pop hits.

But, I've never managed to listen to a Beatles album all the way through, w/o skipping songs. They bore me; especially with all their late career gimickry.

I'd rather listen to the same Stones or Who album 10 times in a row, than put on a Beatles album. Sue me.

Oh, and Babe Ruth is definitely the greatest player ever.
   28. vivaelpujols Posted: December 31, 2013 at 04:29 PM (#4627315)
Hendrix also has a good case over the Beatles.

And the Stones. I agree with Snapper, Beatles pretty much never strayed from 3 minute pop hits. And a lot of those are kind of annoying.
   29. Shock Posted: December 31, 2013 at 04:37 PM (#4627320)
It is nowhere near unreasonable to have Bonds over Ruth.
   30. Baldrick Posted: December 31, 2013 at 05:55 PM (#4627369)
Beatles pretty much never strayed from 3 minute pop hits.

Disagree.
   31. michaelplank has knowledgeable eyes Posted: December 31, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4627448)
Beatles pretty much never strayed from 3 minute pop hits.


Whazza? Half their stuff from Sgt. Pepper on was a bald-faced attempt to push the limits of that format while still, you know, selling records. Whether that was wise or they succeeded are fair subjects of debate.
   32. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 31, 2013 at 08:58 PM (#4627455)


I think Pink Floyd craps on the Bealtes, but they were probably more of a 70's band.


I'll say this about Floyd; The best live show I've ever seen. 1977 Madison Square Garden Animals Tour. Their live version of "Us and Them" brought tears to my eyes. But yes, I would definitely consider them more of a '70's band.
   33. tfbg9 Posted: December 31, 2013 at 08:59 PM (#4627456)
I was always a Stones guy, but feel strongly they made their last great record in Exile on Main Street.
   34. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 31, 2013 at 09:01 PM (#4627457)
All you guys saying the Beatles never strayed from 3 min. pop songs need to bone-up on your Beatles, besides, where's it written that great songs have to be epic?
   35. tfbg9 Posted: December 31, 2013 at 09:05 PM (#4627458)
In "Prog Rock for Dummies"?
   36. Dan Evensen Posted: December 31, 2013 at 10:54 PM (#4627501)
NASCAR replaced hockey in popularity in the United States? Really? Well, whether that's true or not, I'm happy to be north of the border for the time being, where I can watch all the hockey I want. Hockey games are full of action and keep my eyes glued to the television, whereas I have a hard time seeing anything in car racing beyond vehicles going in circles.

I also enjoy soccer, the NFL and basketball. Perhaps I strolled into the wrong Cardsfanboy rant. ;-)

Beatles pretty much never strayed from 3 minute pop hits.

Okay, now this thread is just plain weird. I could see you saying a lot of things about the Beatles, depending on how you feel about the band, but this statement is just simply false.
   37. zenbitz Posted: January 01, 2014 at 12:13 AM (#4627520)
I consider myself a Def Leopard sympathizer.
   38. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: January 01, 2014 at 02:21 AM (#4627532)
The Beatles put "Revolution #9" on an album.
   39. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: January 01, 2014 at 02:49 AM (#4627534)
The Stones? Now talk about a band that is criminally overrated...
   40. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: January 01, 2014 at 10:30 AM (#4627560)
The Stones? Now talk about a band that is criminally overrated...


Talk about a decline phase -- it's basically lasted about 4 decades, which is to say around 80 percent of their existence.
   41. villageidiom Posted: January 01, 2014 at 12:57 PM (#4627617)
It is nowhere near unreasonable to have Bonds over Ruth.
As a hitter. As a pitcher, no.
   42. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: January 01, 2014 at 01:07 PM (#4627622)
There's only one thing that could make someone think that the 90s were a great decade for music: being born in the mid-to-late 70s.

We build our cultural awareness: music, movies, TV, etc., through the ages of roughly 12 to 22. That's how radio stations determine their audience: find out what age segment you want to reach, then play what songs were popular when they were between 12 and 22. I was born in 1965; ergo, I gravitate towards the late 70s and the 80s, whilst avoiding the ear-melting sludge that has passed for popular music since.

Oh, sure, there are exceptions, but most people stop paying attention to pop music once they hit their thirties. (Especially in my case: I started working at my current oldies radio station when I was 29!)
   43. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 01, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4627642)
Talk about a decline phase -- it's basically lasted about 4 decades, which is to say around 80 percent of their existence.


Yeah, I think if Brooks Robinson and Johnny Bench were still active players people wouldn't see what's so great about them either. "Hall of Famers? They've entirely cancelled out their good seasons with -80 WAR since 1990!"
   44. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: January 01, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4627646)
Best band of the 60s: Velvet Underground.

The last great Stones record was Some Girls, which is their third-best after Exile and Sticky Fingers. Stones are better than the Beatles.

Best band of the 90s: Beastie Boys.
   45. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: January 01, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4627668)
The Beasties are a historically fascinating band, if only because of how unique they were. And I'll give them credit for producing quality stuff even after their peak stuff. Hello Nasty is really good, for instance.
   46. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 01, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4627674)
As a hitter. As a pitcher, no.


Not even as a hitter, unless you're time-lining, referring to peak only and ignoring the pink elephant.
   47. Shock Posted: January 01, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4627717)
ignoring the pink elephant


Segregation?

Ruth is the best ever at clobbering white guys throwing 60 MPH fastballs. Good for him.
   48. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 01, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4627721)


Segregation?

Ruth is the best ever at clobbering white guys throwing 60 MPH fastballs. Good for him.


Can't say you didn't choose your handle wisely.
   49. Flynn Posted: January 01, 2014 at 04:05 PM (#4627734)
If you think hockey is still a major sport in the US, you're the one being delusional. NASCAR replaced it as the 4th major sport the last time it went out of business (still well behind NFL/NBA/MLB, there are really only three major sports, but NASCAR is fourth in the pecking order and would do well if it were electoral voting though it would probably lose many of its states to college football.)


Hockey is a $4 billion revenue sport, while the NBA is $5. Now probably 40% to half that revenue comes from north of the border (although the NBA claims 10% of its revenue is from overseas), but the NBA's popularity is vastly overestimated. Because only a handful of teams have a real shot at winning the title, most fanbases are totally disengaged from their local team. It's like MLB's problem in reverse and times ten: the NBA Finals are a BIG event as compared to the decreasing importance of the World Series, but most teams have poor local TV ratings as compared to baseball.
   50. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 01, 2014 at 04:08 PM (#4627736)
Whazza? Half their stuff from Sgt. Pepper on was a bald-faced attempt to push the limits of that format while still, you know, selling records. Whether that was wise or they succeeded are fair subjects of debate.

All you guys saying the Beatles never strayed from 3 min. pop songs need to bone-up on your Beatles, besides, where's it written that great songs have to be epic?


I didn't say that. I said the only songs I like are the 3 min. pop songs. The "push the limits" stuff I find to be be tedious, over-produced crap.

   51. tfbg9 Posted: January 01, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4627765)
Some Girls has not held up well for me. Even Metamorphosis is a better record than Some Girls, which is, to me, empty Jet Set crap compared to their stuff through EoMS.

I love the old Stones stuff, but they should have died in a plane crash in '75 or so.

95 percent of the Beatles songs we know and love are 3-4 minute pop songs. That's what they did. There are exceptions, but as a rule they wrote pretty pop songs. Brilliantly.
   52. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 01, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4627784)

95 percent of the Beatles songs we know and love are 3-4 minute pop songs. That's what they did. There are exceptions, but as a rule they wrote pretty pop songs. Brilliantly.


I guess it depends on how we're defining "pop". To me the Beatles ceased being a pop band with the release of Rubber Soul. Their writing clearly became more mature and introspective. It was also before their experimental phase, unless you want to consider the sitar experimental.
   53. michaelplank has knowledgeable eyes Posted: January 01, 2014 at 06:25 PM (#4627857)
Best band of the 60s: Velvet Underground.


Their first 2.5 albums match or exceed Rubber Soul and Revolver on peak, but the Beatles crush them on prime, destroy them on career and get bonus points as pioneers.
   54. BFFB Posted: January 01, 2014 at 08:48 PM (#4627899)
Oh, sure, there are exceptions, but most people stop paying attention to pop music once they hit their thirties. (Especially in my case: I started working at my current oldies radio station when I was 29!)


Well at least that makes me exceptional at something!

Also FTR best band of the 60's was the Mile's Davis Quintet :D
   55. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: January 01, 2014 at 09:28 PM (#4627921)
Well at least that makes me exceptional at something!


Same here, apparently. My interest started flagging when I was entering my mid-40s, about 10 years ago, but every now & then I still perk up when something new grabs my attention.
   56. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: January 01, 2014 at 09:29 PM (#4627922)
Their first 2.5 albums match or exceed Rubber Soul and Revolver on peak, but the Beatles crush them on prime, destroy them on career and get bonus points as pioneers.


I wouldn't say the Beatles get any sort of edge there when the Velvets are the point of comparison.
   57. T.J. Posted: January 01, 2014 at 09:30 PM (#4627924)
Beatles pretty much never strayed from 3 minute pop hits.


Can I get a ruling on whether this is THE most factually incorrect (apparently serious) thing EVER said on BBTF?
   58. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: January 01, 2014 at 09:48 PM (#4627934)
Unfortunately, for those of us who drop in to the politics thread every now & then, it's not even the most factually incorrect (apparently serious) thing said on BBTF in the last half-week.
   59. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: January 01, 2014 at 10:23 PM (#4627950)
Their first 2.5 albums match or exceed Rubber Soul and Revolver on peak, but the Beatles crush them on prime, destroy them on career and get bonus points as pioneers.


I'll take the Velvets' peak and prime over the Beatles', since I love all four of their studio albums, most of them more than any one Beatles album, plus the album of outtakes (VU), and the many great live bootlegs of their work (which of course the Beatles don't have). I'll give you career. And of course the VU get as much credit for pioneering as any rock band ever.
   60. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: January 01, 2014 at 10:30 PM (#4627954)
Lou Reed's death spurred me to listen to the 4 studio albums repeatedly; they're pretty much all I listened to for about 6 weeks, except for a couple of live Velvets as well, along with VU & Another View. So, yeah -- what Alex said.
   61. PreservedFish Posted: January 02, 2014 at 01:09 AM (#4628001)
I find it difficult to evaluate how innovative or pioneering the Beatles were. If you draw the family tree of rock, it's easy to chart the branch that begins with VU and then moves out away from the trunk, with names like Joy Division, Television, Sonic Youth etc. It's a hell of a branch, one of the best branches of the tree. Maybe the best. But the Beatles are the trunk. They go straight up. It's easier to define alternatives than it is the mainstream.

Ultimately I don't think it's for me to judge how innovative one band was or wasn't. I wasn't alive when these bands were releasing music. It doesn't matter if Blue Cheer was releasing heavy metal music before Black Sabbath did. It doesn't matter if the Byrds used some studio trick 6 months before the Beatles did. What matters now is the quality of the music. No more pioneer bonus points from me.

Maybe Rubber Soul was mind-blowing when it came out. I think it's a fantastic album. I'm also amazed that Albert Ayler's Spiritual Unity was released the same year. I tend to think that if you look really carefully at what either of these bands were doing, you can find antecedents and contemporaries for most of their innovations. I think this is probably true of most inventions and great ideas. Darwin was almost scooped by Alfred Russell Wallace. Leibniz and Newton independently invented calculus at the same time.
   62. vivaelpujols Posted: January 02, 2014 at 04:38 AM (#4628022)
Whazza? Half their stuff from Sgt. Pepper on was a bald-faced attempt to push the limits of that format while still, you know, selling records. Whether that was wise or they succeeded are fair subjects of debate.


It's true that the Beatles did a lot of technical innovations with tape cutting, playing tape backwards, etc. But the song writing was still mostly short pop songs. By that I mean vocally dominated and melodically focused instead of rhythmically or texturally focused. Obviously that's the most appealing type of music to most people, which is why the Beatles were so popular, but it does get old after awhile and my favorites bands all generally have more variety (Nirvana being the exception). For instance take Saucerful of Secrets, I don't love the whole album (the last 4 songs kind of suck) by the first three songs take you to a completely different place than any Beatles song could (with the exception of Because and Within You Without You and maybe a Day in the Life) because they play with space so well and dwell on passages for a long time (which is basically impossible for a vocally dominated song to do, those type of songs tend to move quicker and change up more).

TLDR, Beatles songs are almost always written around vocal hooks, most of their experimentation is in the accompanying instruments which are secondary to the vocals.

I'll take the Velvets' peak and prime over the Beatles', since I love all four of their studio albums, most of them more than any one Beatles album, plus the album of outtakes (VU), and the many great live bootlegs of their work (which of course the Beatles don't have).


Agreed. I actually think White Light, White Heat and Loaded are pretty spotty (and those are generally considered their best two albums I believe), but VU, Velvet Undergound and their first album are absolutely amazing.

The Stones? Now talk about a band that is criminally overrated...


Stones are overrated, but they have a real classic sound that's completely unique.

I find it difficult to evaluate how innovative or pioneering the Beatles were. If you draw the family tree of rock, it's easy to chart the branch that begins with VU and then moves out away from the trunk, with names like Joy Division, Television, Sonic Youth etc. It's a hell of a branch, one of the best branches of the tree. Maybe the best. But the Beatles are the trunk. They go straight up. It's easier to define alternatives than it is the mainstream.


Agree with all of this and the Beatles are probably more influential on pure scope than VU, but I think the type of music the Beatles play would likely have been made without them (not as well) because that's what people are drawn to. Do you think that if the Beatles never existed and the Kinks became a huge pop band that music would be radically different today?

Beatles are just the best at writing catchy melodies (literally every Beatles song you hear gets stuck in your head), everything else is posturing IMO.
   63. vivaelpujols Posted: January 02, 2014 at 04:44 AM (#4628023)
Can I get a ruling on whether this is THE most factually incorrect (apparently serious) thing EVER said on BBTF?


On the spectrum of 100% pop (Kiss From a Rose) and a 0% pop (this song), almost all Beatles songs fall on the extreme left side of that curve.
   64. PreservedFish Posted: January 02, 2014 at 06:27 AM (#4628028)
Beatles are just the best at writing catchy melodies (literally every Beatles song you hear gets stuck in your head), everything else is posturing IMO.


This is probably going a bit too far.

Do you think that if the Beatles never existed and the Kinks became a huge pop band that music would be radically different today?


Probably not, no. I think that if you look at pop music in the mid-60s, the Beatles were basically just months ahead of everyone else. They released Rubber Soul in late 1965, and I think it was probably genuinely innovative, fresh, exciting ... it was certainly the deepest and most ambitious music they'd ever recorded. If you look at the other albums released that year, such as in this list, you've got Highway 61 and the Byrds and nobody else that's doing the same things the Beatles are doing. Look at 1966 and the floodgates open: Pet Sounds, Aftermath, Freak Out!, Face to Face, Buffalo Springfield ... did the Beatles somehow allow all of this to happen? Of course not. They may have been the primary shakers in this scene (or second to Dylan), they may have been massively influential, but I think the rock n roll world would march on without them just fine.
   65. PreservedFish Posted: January 02, 2014 at 06:43 AM (#4628029)
On the spectrum of 100% pop (Kiss From a Rose) and a 0% pop (this song), almost all Beatles songs fall on the extreme left side of that curve.


The problem with the quote is that the Beatles very specifically tried to record un-poppy songs, long songs, even unlistenable songs. And were famous for doing so. So your comment was indeed fabulously inaccurate.
   66. michaelplank has knowledgeable eyes Posted: January 02, 2014 at 07:13 AM (#4628031)
I find it difficult to evaluate how innovative or pioneering the Beatles were. If you draw the family tree of rock, it's easy to chart the branch that begins with VU and then moves out away from the trunk, with names like Joy Division, Television, Sonic Youth etc. It's a hell of a branch, one of the best branches of the tree. Maybe the best. But the Beatles are the trunk. They go straight up. It's easier to define alternatives than it is the mainstream.


QFT, the whole thing. What I was getting at, but expressed incompletely (rushed the post because I had to walk my dog ;)), is this: the VU is inner circle HOF as pioneers. The Beatles beat them even there.
   67. michaelplank has knowledgeable eyes Posted: January 02, 2014 at 07:44 AM (#4628032)
It's true that the Beatles did a lot of technical innovations with tape cutting, playing tape backwards, etc. But the song writing was still mostly short pop songs. By that I mean vocally dominated and melodically focused instead of rhythmically or texturally focused. Obviously that's the most appealing type of music to most people, which is why the Beatles were so popular, but it does get old after awhile and my favorites bands all generally have more variety (Nirvana being the exception). For instance take Saucerful of Secrets, I don't love the whole album (the last 4 songs kind of suck) by the first three songs take you to a completely different place than any Beatles song could (with the exception of Because and Within You Without You and maybe a Day in the Life) because they play with space so well and dwell on passages for a long time (which is basically impossible for a vocally dominated song to do, those type of songs tend to move quicker and change up more).


I agree with this but would not view composition and production as separate processes in the way you describe. Much of what put and kept the Beatles ahead was, first, they wrote their own songs, second, they were involved as producers, and third, they attempted to avoid repeating sounds... Structures, sure, not so much, as that's much harder. Many of the Beatles songs, especially Lennon's, were sketched out on guitar but did not really take shape until they started recording them and applying the effects you describe. Again, all of this was absolutely novel when they began doing it. Others then followed.

As far as them being ahead of the game, Lennon addresses this in the Playboy interview given right before his death. He says something like, they were in the same boat as everybody, maybe the Beatles were in the crow's nest shouting "Land ho!" or something, but everybody was being pushed by the same wind. That's his take; no one else is bound by it.
   68. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 02, 2014 at 08:18 AM (#4628034)
Take away every chart single the Beatles ever had, from all of the #1's and Top Tens, right on down to the "Inner Light" instrumental (#96), and "She Loves You" sung in German (#97). Wipe 'em from existence. Now they can compete with the Velvet Underground even-steven, as no-hit wonders.

And all that the hitless cult favorite Beatles would have going for them is "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," "Taxman," "Here Comes the Sun," "She Said She Said," "In My Life," "Because," "Michelle," "Back in the USSR," "I'm a Loser," "Rain," "Helter Skelter," "I Me Mine," "Lovely Rita," "Tell Me Why," "Savoy Truffle," "Drive My Car," "Blackbird," "You're Going to Lose That Girl," "I Will," "Only a Northern Song," "With a Little Help from My Friends," "Norwegian Wood," "No Reply," "Hey Bulldog," "Magical Mystery Tour," "Julia," "It Won't Be Long," "Here There & Everywhere," "Any Time at All," "Oh Darling," "Glass Onion," "I'm Looking Through You," "Happiness is a Warm Gun," "I've Just Seen a Face," "Good Morning Good Morning," "Birthday," "Across the Universe," "For No One," "And Your Bird Can Sing," the Abbey Road medley, "Tomorrow Never Knows," "A Day in the Life," and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps."
   69. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 02, 2014 at 08:57 AM (#4628036)
Beatles crush them on prime


If the Beatles hadn't been popular in the youth of Baby Boomers, nobody would be trying to fob them off as the greatest band of all time. I enjoy some of their music, but I find the bulk of it to be cutesy, silly, or lame. There's absolutely no emotional core to the band; John Lennon didn't catch fire as a songwriter until he allowed his anger to show -- on Plastic Ono Band, which is vastly superior to the novelty music that makes up the bulk of the Beatles' later output.

And It really, really annoys me when I get accused of being nothing but a contrarian for finding the Beatles to be a snore. There are plenty of things that are plenty popular that I enjoy quite well. ####, I have a tattoo that comes from a Harry Potter book. I do not hold these opinions because they bother people; I hold them because they seem patently true, to me. It's not as though I haven't listened to this music, either -- in Gonfalon's "hitless" list from above, I could probably sing the tune to all but one or two without having to be reminded. I just don't like it. Other than "Baby You're a Rich Man" and a few things on the White Album & Rubber Soul, I could do without the entire output of the Beatles and be happier for it.

As to the 90s . . . I dunno, I feel like there came to be a point after the DIY revolution of the late 70s and early 80s at which it became fruitless to discuss which decade had the "best" bands, because there's just so much out there. The music that was popular in the 90s, other than Nirvana and some of the hip-hop, was largely pretty bad, but there were so many more Velvet Underground-style, toil-in-relative-obscurity bands that you can't really write the whole decade off. This is the decade of Neutral Milk Hotel, DJ Shadow, Aphex Twin's more listenable stuff, the height of the Mountain Goats, A Tribe Called Quest, and a million other things that sounded great when they came out and have withstood the test of time a lot better than most of the bloatrock of the 60s and 70s (I'm looking at you, The Doors).
   70. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 02, 2014 at 09:11 AM (#4628040)
Beatles are just the best at writing catchy melodies (literally every Beatles song you hear gets stuck in your head), everything else is posturing IMO.


Even this semi-slam on the Beatles shows their strength. Catchy melodies that get stuck in your head is a feature for a musician who wants to be popular.

Much more interesting than #1* is who is Second? There the field is much more open. Has any one mentioned Elvis yet? I don't love the music, but he has a case for #2.

* I get what you are saying Voxter, I do, and while they are not my favorite band, and while timing and demographics might have something to do with it, The Beatles are #1. At a party ask a crowd of semi-random people of pretty much any age and the Beatles will get mentioned. And pretty much every serious critic and historian of pop music will go with the Beatles.
   71. Daunte Vicknabbit! Posted: January 02, 2014 at 09:14 AM (#4628044)
I seriously wonder if all the people that are saying the Beatles never wrote stuff that wasn't pop have listened to even like, half of their discography. I sure as #### am not a die hard Beatles fan, I never listen to them (never listen to most old rock stuff anymore, mostly newer indie stuff and rap) but I still recognize them as a great experimental and even avant garde type band.

Is The Arcade Fire the Nirvana of 2000s, or is that The Strokes, or The White Stripes?
   72. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 02, 2014 at 09:24 AM (#4628046)

Beatles are just the best at writing catchy melodies (literally every Beatles song you hear gets stuck in your head), everything else is posturing IMO.


Kettle black IMO
   73. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 02, 2014 at 09:26 AM (#4628047)
* I get what you are saying Voxter, I do, and while they are not my favorite band, and while timing and demographics might have something to do with it, The Beatles are #1. At a party ask a crowd of semi-random people of pretty much any age and the Beatles will get mentioned. And pretty much every serious critic and historian of pop music will go with the Beatles.


And that was really the point I was trying to make in post #14. Obviously, taste in music, like taste in food is ultimately subjective.
   74. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 02, 2014 at 09:55 AM (#4628059)
At a party ask a crowd of semi-random people of pretty much any age and the Beatles will get mentioned. And pretty much every serious critic and historian of pop music will go with the Beatles.


But this is mostly received wisdom. Ask a follow-up question about how often they actually listen to the Beatles, you'd get a lot of, "oh, when they're on the radio" or, "not that much, really". And since I don't really subscribe to the great man theory of anything, what the Beatles get credit for now would have probably been done by somebody somewhere. It kind of already was being done -- Bob Dylan, the Beach Boys, the Velvet Underground, and a host of others were pushing the bounds of what could be done with rock 'n' roll before the Beatles released Rubber Soul, let alone Revolver or that perplexingly overrated Sgt Pepper's (which I find to be almost completely unlistenable).

I imagine it will also cease to be conventional wisdom as time passes. As the death grip that boomers hold over the media and critical culture of the English-speaking world begins to fade, the consensus will almost certainly shift. This happens all the time in culture. Citizen Kane finally relinquished the top slot on the Sight & Sound list. It just strikes me as fantasy that, because they were first(ish), they get to be best. That's just nonsense. They're not the tree from which everybody else branched. Quite the contrary. In their wake, a lot of popular music got very, very bad indeed, and most of what happened that was good was a fairly explicit rejection of the Beatles' aesthetic. The Velvet Underground sold a tiny fraction as many albums, but they're the well from which almost all subsequent pop music springs.
   75. Jay Z Posted: January 02, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4628422)
But this is mostly received wisdom. Ask a follow-up question about how often they actually listen to the Beatles, you'd get a lot of, "oh, when they're on the radio" or, "not that much, really". And since I don't really subscribe to the great man theory of anything, what the Beatles get credit for now would have probably been done by somebody somewhere. It kind of already was being done -- Bob Dylan, the Beach Boys, the Velvet Underground, and a host of others were pushing the bounds of what could be done with rock 'n' roll before the Beatles released Rubber Soul, let alone Revolver or that perplexingly overrated Sgt Pepper's (which I find to be almost completely unlistenable).

I imagine it will also cease to be conventional wisdom as time passes. As the death grip that boomers hold over the media and critical culture of the English-speaking world begins to fade, the consensus will almost certainly shift. This happens all the time in culture. Citizen Kane finally relinquished the top slot on the Sight & Sound list. It just strikes me as fantasy that, because they were first(ish), they get to be best. That's just nonsense. They're not the tree from which everybody else branched. Quite the contrary. In their wake, a lot of popular music got very, very bad indeed, and most of what happened that was good was a fairly explicit rejection of the Beatles' aesthetic. The Velvet Underground sold a tiny fraction as many albums, but they're the well from which almost all subsequent pop music springs.


Beatles biggest accomplishment was making Ringo Starr a famous person. The epitome of the group concept applied to pop/instrumental music. Plus they held a band together with two strong songwriters as long as they could.

Kane is just a big ol' magic act to me. If I want to learn about the rich through fiction, I'll go to Great Gatsby or somewhere else. Having character and story weaknesses is a bad thing in a work of fiction. If it actually been an authentic exploration of a Hearst type instead of a hatchet job, it would have been a better film. I will grant that it aspired to be The Greatest Movie Of All Time more than any other. I guess enough people bought the hype.
   76. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: January 02, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4628463)
Bob Dylan, the Beach Boys, the Velvet Underground, and a host of others were pushing the bounds of what could be done with rock 'n' roll before the Beatles released Rubber Soul,



I'm sure Brian Wilson will be surprised to hear that considering: http://www.contactmusic.com/news/rubber-soul-inspired-brian-wilson-to-write-pet-sounds_1223282
He's said as much on many occasion.
I know it's cool and above it all to trash the Beatles, but doing it using a false premise doesn't help your argument.
   77. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: January 02, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4628490)
As far as them being ahead of the game, Lennon addresses this in the Playboy interview given right before his death. He says something like, they were in the same boat as everybody, maybe the Beatles were in the crow's nest shouting "Land ho!" or something, but everybody was being pushed by the same wind. That's his take; no one else is bound by it.

As Babe Ruth was to Rogers Hornsby.
   78. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 02, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4628499)
But this is mostly received wisdom.


Well you don't want to use subjective measurements (like received wisdom). You don't seem to credit the critics (who as far as I can tell are pretty unanimous on the subject). I bet you are not up for using objective measures including record sales and such (because there is some obvious crap on those lists). Perhaps you prefer asking musicians?

But the thing is that the Beatles score very high (usually first) in ALL of those measures. If it was just one thing - like record sales - that would be one thing, but they are across the board like no other group: critics, fans, musicians, the general public; both back in the day and today.

If they are not #1 then no one is.
   79. vivaelpujols Posted: January 02, 2014 at 06:04 PM (#4628586)

The problem with the quote is that the Beatles very specifically tried to record un-poppy songs, long songs, even unlistenable songs.


Examples please.
   80. vivaelpujols Posted: January 02, 2014 at 06:07 PM (#4628587)

This is probably going a bit too far.


I'm not saying the Beatles didn't do other things well, just they were never the best at anything besides writing catching melodies but for some reason people want to give them credit as innovators and great experimenters when that's not why they were good at all.

It's kind of like Derek Jeter. He's an incredible baseball player on his own merits, but people like to elevate him higher by praising his defense and leadership.
   81. vivaelpujols Posted: January 02, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4628589)
Even this semi-slam on the Beatles shows their strength. Catchy melodies that get stuck in your head is a feature for a musician who wants to be popular.


I'm not meaning this to be a slam and I'm expressly saying that this is their strength, so I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.
   82. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: January 02, 2014 at 06:20 PM (#4628597)
If you're passionately arguing the value of pop music from five decades ago you should probably go ahead and get the order in for your Medicare scooter.
   83. PepTech Posted: January 02, 2014 at 06:48 PM (#4628613)
Beatles are just the best at writing catchy melodies (literally every Beatles song you hear gets stuck in your head), everything else is posturing IMO.
You'd think that people would have had enough of silly love songs.
   84. vivaelpujols Posted: January 02, 2014 at 07:05 PM (#4628625)
critics, fans, musicians


I'm guessing critics and musicians would not have the Beatles #1. Any case the Beatles have, Pink Floyd does as well. They have the second highest selling album of all time. They are critically revered as well.

I'm guessing if you polled musicians, Hendrix would come out on top, if you polled critics it would be Floyd, if you polled consumers it would be Beatles. But yeah I agree that no one is a clear #1.
   85. villageidiom Posted: January 02, 2014 at 07:23 PM (#4628641)
The Velvet Underground sold a tiny fraction as many albums, but they're the well from which almost all subsequent pop music springs.
OK, people have been put in the position of having to defend the Beatles for long enough in this thread while statements about VU have gone uncontested. Almost all subsequent pop music? Really? OK, prove it. Here are ten popular artists in pop music in that time. Explain the VU influence.

Billy Joel
ABBA
George Michael/Wham
Michael Jackson
Hall & Oates
Spice Girls
Will Smith
Madonna
Shania Twain
Taylor Swift
   86. Lassus Posted: January 02, 2014 at 07:30 PM (#4628645)
Oh god, this again.
   87. michaelplank has knowledgeable eyes Posted: January 02, 2014 at 07:32 PM (#4628647)
Madonna


Sister Ray of Light?
   88. tfbg9 Posted: January 02, 2014 at 07:37 PM (#4628657)
There's nothing wrong with pretty, catchy melodies and nice changes. I love beautiful melodies and changes. They're some of the great joys of living.
   89. vivaelpujols Posted: January 02, 2014 at 07:45 PM (#4628664)
There's nothing wrong with pretty, catchy melodies and nice changes. I love beautiful melodies and changes. They're some of the great joys of living.


Agree.

The Velvet Underground sold a tiny fraction as many albums, but they're the well from which almost all subsequent pop music springs.


This is probably not true. Velvet Underground is hugely influential in indie rock (Pavement, Pixies, Nirvana who is not indie but hugely Velvets influenced), which is influential on current pop music.. but I would say most pop music listed in 85 are not Velvet influenced at all.

I will say that Call Me Maybe sounds like it was influenced by Street Hassle to me
   90. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 02, 2014 at 07:46 PM (#4628666)
Unbeatable skill for melody must be like Ichiro's home runs.
   91. vivaelpujols Posted: January 02, 2014 at 08:02 PM (#4628683)
Sgt Pepper's (which I find to be almost completely unlistenable).


It's mostly pretty bad but Within You Without You and A Day in the Life are excellent.
   92. BDC Posted: January 02, 2014 at 08:09 PM (#4628687)
what the Beatles get credit for now would have probably been done by somebody somewhere

Much like Shakespeare or Dickens: to name two other English institutions that are overfamiliar, and popular targets for taking down a peg or two. But the range of accomplishment in all three cases is extreme.
   93. BFFB Posted: January 02, 2014 at 08:11 PM (#4628689)
I'm 32 so most definitely not of a generation that would have been caught up in the Beatles hype or it's immediate wake and this sample size of one can't stand their music. The early stuff I find incredibly boring and repetitive (saccharine sweet would be a good description) while the later stuff just seems to throw wacky effects onto wrote pop songs willy nilly in an attempt to make them "experimental" - note I also have never been able to listen to Pet Sounds for more than about ten minutes without wanting to rip my ears off.

And it's not due to the influence of listening to things which were similar to them first either because when I was ~11 and just getting into music it more or less went 50's rock and roll --> Beatles --> Oh god if this is what music is I don't like it --> Hard Bop (hey this is good!) --> way more jazz --> heavy metal (this is OK) --> Electronica (hey this is really good!) over about five years.

Electronica and Jazz is still what I listen to most with some indie scattered in-between.
   94. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: January 02, 2014 at 08:14 PM (#4628692)
The problem with the quote is that the Beatles very specifically tried to record un-poppy songs, long songs, even unlistenable songs.


Examples please.


Revolution #9
Within You Without You
Why Don't We Do It In the Road?
You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)
Flying
I Am the Walrus

I mean..."Hey Jude" is seven minutes long.
   95. vivaelpujols Posted: January 02, 2014 at 08:23 PM (#4628701)
I am the Walrus is like one of the poppiest songs of all time. That's kind of what I'm talking about. It has weird effects and jumps around a lot, but it's still built around vocal hooks. Great song though.

Revolution 9 is unlistenable, I'll give you that :) But true that's an example of real experimentation.

Why don't we do it in the road is just generic blues. I guess you wouldn't call it pop..

Within You Without You is a good example and a great song.

I'll give you Flying, even though I think it's terrible. Hey Jude is a pop ballad that goes on for 7 minutes for some reason. Kind of like Layla (both are godawful songs).

So that's what 2 songs in their entire catalogue that don't qualify as pop and their both pretty terrible?
   96. PreservedFish Posted: January 02, 2014 at 08:27 PM (#4628706)
I'm guessing if you polled musicians, Hendrix would come out on top, if you polled critics it would be Floyd, if you polled consumers it would be Beatles. But yeah I agree that no one is a clear #1.


I believe that you are quite wrong here about Pink Floyd. I think many critics pigeonhole them as a classic rock / prog band, which has never been the most popular genre among critics.

Just to take the first lists that Google spits out:

Rolling Stone's latest Top 500 Albums of All Time list has four Beatles albums in the top 10. Pink Floyd has two in the top 100.
NME has two Beatles albums in the top 10. Pink Floyd has zero in the top 20.
Mojo has two Beatles albums in the top 10. Pink Floyd has zero in the top 20.
And then we have BestEverAlbums.com, an aggregator. Four Beatles albums in top 10. Pink Floyd has one. (#2 overall, DSOTM)

Dylan is really the only person/band that's competing with the Beatles on lists like this. You might argue that the lists are corrupted for some reason, to the tastes of the readers or whatever, and that's possible, I suppose.
   97. tfbg9 Posted: January 02, 2014 at 08:27 PM (#4628707)
C'mon. Everybody knows that Revolution 9 is a message to Charlie.
   98. vivaelpujols Posted: January 02, 2014 at 08:27 PM (#4628708)
I'd say Long, Long, Long is an example of a not poppy Beatles song. It's vocally dominated, but it's way too low key and somber to be consider pop. It reminds me a lot of early Pink Floyd actually.

PreservedFish, I think you are right, thanks for those lists.
   99. vivaelpujols Posted: January 02, 2014 at 08:33 PM (#4628713)
Thought this was interesting:

http://avrev.com/top-100-bands-of-all-time/top-10-rock-bands/index.php

   100. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: January 02, 2014 at 08:33 PM (#4628714)
I am the Walrus is like one of the poppiest songs of all time. That's kind of what I'm talking about. It has weird effects and jumps around a lot, but it's still built around vocal hooks. Great song though.


It's also long (4'33" is long for a pop single in 1967) and full of nonsense, both lyrical and production.

So that's what 2 songs in their entire catalogue that don't qualify as pop and their both pretty terrible?


That's because you're disallowing anything that's a good song! "Hey Jude" was the longest #1 song ever, but you disallow it because it's too good? "I Am the Walrus" is a song that has a random Shakespeare broadcast in the mix, but it doesn't count because it's got a great melody.

What are you looking for here? The measure of a good band is how many bad songs they recorded? What made the Beatles great is that they were incredibly experimental ("Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite" had calliope tapes cut up, thrown into the air, and randomly reassembled) and made great songs at the same time.

Something doesn't stop being experimental just because the experiment works.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JE (Jason Epstein)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(241 - 3:26am, Apr 17)
Last: sardonic

NewsblogOMNICHATTER: Wednesday April 16, 2014
(106 - 2:46am, Apr 17)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(181 - 2:16am, Apr 17)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogNightengale: Pujols nears 500 home runs...and no one seems to care
(67 - 2:15am, Apr 17)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogVerducci: Overuse of young pitchers fueling MLB's Tommy John surgery problem
(43 - 12:51am, Apr 17)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogPaine: Advanced Stats Love Jackie Robinson
(8 - 12:50am, Apr 17)
Last: JE (Jason Epstein)

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(38 - 12:46am, Apr 17)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(95 - 11:42pm, Apr 16)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(132 - 10:55pm, Apr 16)
Last: zack

NewsblogExposition:The Jonah Keri Mega Q&A
(6 - 10:50pm, Apr 16)
Last: God

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(52 - 10:46pm, Apr 16)
Last: Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(60 - 10:30pm, Apr 16)
Last: I Helped Patrick McGoohan Escape

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1393 - 10:15pm, Apr 16)
Last: Publius Publicola

NewsblogAstros To Promote George Springer
(40 - 9:20pm, Apr 16)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogGothamist: Yankee Stadium Is Selling Nachos In A Helmet For $20
(72 - 9:04pm, Apr 16)
Last: puck

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.0999 seconds
52 querie(s) executed