If you combine the output of Joy Division / New Order...

[Shareefruck]

Yeah, I see it as the exact opposite.

The work is perceived as being artistically compromised once it has universal appeal.

There is an entire subset of people who dislike sharing their preferences with mainstream opinion as it contradicts their inherent belief that they have a unique and nuanced appreciation of an artform that the average person does not possess.

The critical perception of their artistry is a casualty and a victim of their own popularity.

What I admire about someone like @kihei is that he manages to bring his experienced lens for film to bear without seemingly being burdened by any preconceived notions of what a film critic -should- like or dislike.

One of my pet peeves is these retroactive reviews of albums that sites like Pitchfork put together - in some cases contradicting their original evaluations. I'd prefer if they just stood by their original opinions rather than trying to correct a past mistake or make up for a seemingly missed opportunity.

That's a pretty far cry from what I'm actually arguing though (especially considering that you removed the "once you get past a certain threshold" qualifier from my quote, which was pretty important). I'm essentially arguing the same point that The Beatles transition into the studio was a perfect example of and was a reaction to.

In order to reach the insane rabid fandom of Beatlemania, the music did have to be (or at the very least benefited from being) limited to something simpler, more restrictive, and less interesting/humanistic that reached the widest, lowest common denominator of audiences. Even though it was still arguably very good, once they removed those shackles and stopped pandering to it, their music became much more personal and artistically uncompromising to the specific things that they want to express most-- something that I think one would expect to (and did) inherently alienate a lot of the more casual fans that made Beatlemania possible in the first place. I think this tendency naturally exists in most art-- there are progressively greater diminishing returns in quality, nuance, and personalization the more you try to please everyone at the same time (and there is at least "potential" for greater rewards the deeper down that rabbit hole you explore, often at the expense of broad appeal). Nearly everything specific, organic, honest, creative, and personal can be viewed as "niche" in some way and to some degree, but this happens to also be where the most satisfying and rewarding value tends to be drawn, in my opinion. Lack of artistic compromise can be very good in this respect, and alienating many viewers in the process is a very natural phenomenon that shouldn't be viewed as some sort of blight on the work (it's often necessary to reach certain heights). This is the point I'm making, and I'm sure you can see it to varying degrees in media as well.

I completely agree that Pitchfork is utter trash, but I'm not arguing in favor of that mentality, nor do I think its impact makes a dent compared to the opposite mentality. In my view, the issue with the hipster mentality is more that they observed this natural phenomenon (which I think is rooted in truth) and disingenuously concluded that something must be bad BECAUSE it is popular and something must be good BECAUSE it is not, in order to feed their twisted view of credibility. It's like they're taking what appears to be a dishonest shortcut to come across as something that looks like it COULD resemble something organic and interesting, but usually isn't. I agree that this is steeped in bull-****, but the fact that this grossly distorted attitude is annoying doesn't make the pattern that it's a reaction to non-existent, in my opinion.

Also, I could be misreading your tone here, but I feel like you've had an unfair tendency to paint my views this way when I don't actually think that way at all or base my views on some weird concept of ego or attempt at credibility/uniqueness-- I just value what I value and it tends to lean in that direction, in large part due to the phenomenon that I described-- the more personally uncompromised attitudes that I appreciate most and see the most value in tends to end up in those pockets of relative nicheness-- it's not a projection of my own desire to come across a certain way.

 

[kook10]

Somehow the Beatles are somehow musically simple in comparison to Joy Division? That is a very hot take.

 

[Shareefruck]

Somehow the Beatles are somehow musically simple in comparison to Joy Division? That is a very hot take.

Nobody implied that.

While I agree with most of your sentiments, I think it's your conclusions that are off base. Popularity and widespread music appeal/acknowledgement of excellence is as close as your going to get to indiscriminate greatness judged by the masses. Now if you wanted to ask music enthusiasts/historians/etc, then that's a whole other thing. But the whole "Beatles/Stones" answer to a question like this is as consensus as you're going to get in general.

The variability in the definition of greatness and the characteristics by which greatness is ranked is interesting, but a whole argument in itself. I can say The Beatles, Bach, Miles Davis, Frank Zappa, and Leonard Cohen are the 5 greatest artist/band/musical-creators of all time, and given my translation of the definition of the word greatness, I won't be wrong. The variation of how one judges this question asked is so enormous that it's not truly fair to throw out 1 or 2 bands and vague terms and hope for widespread agreement or proper intellectual debate. That's why I proposed the asterisk theory. Is Joy Divison (and as proven, New Order to a much lesser extent) one of the greatest bands of all time(at minimum from a discography standpoint), the answer is maybe, but the general consensus would be no. That depends on your interpretation of the word greatest, your guidelines for this ranking, and lastly of course...your taste/opinion on music (which can't be understated in the slightest).

It's the closest you can get to something verifiable, I agree, but applied to something that inherently is not actually verifiable to begin with (for pretty much the reasons you proceeded to give), rendering the closest attempt still pretty marginal and meaningless. That would be my argument, I'm not sure if you agree with it or not.

I agree with everything you said afterwards, and discussions and arguments about our ideas of greatness can only involve sharing our personal perspectives of them-- it's impossible for us to have any greater certainty than that. However, even with that in mind, our best attempts at a subjective answer is still more meaningful and compelling than the misguided and impossible best attempts we can make at a verifiable one, in my opinion. To impose the latter as an authority on the former simply because of some flimsy notion of consensus makes no sense.

 

[kook10]

Nobody implied that.
It's the closest you can get to something verifiable, I agree, but to something that inherently is not verifiable to begin with, rendering the closest attempt still pretty marginal and meaningless. That would be my argument, I'm not sure if you agree with it or not.

I agree with everything you said afterwards, and discussions and arguments about our ideas of greatness can only involve sharing our personal perspectives of them-- it's impossible for us to have any greater certainty than that. The subjective answer is more meaningful and compelling than the misguided and impossible best attempts we can make at a verifiable one, in my opinion. To impose the latter as an authority on the former makes no sense.

Then why all the lists and rankings?

 

[Shareefruck]

Then why all the lists and rankings?

Because it's compulsively fun and rewarding to understand, organize, share, and express what my own perspective is? Objectively verifiable external factors like popularity, cultural impact, and influence have zero influence on my lists and rankings, nor would I ever want them to, because I don't value these things at all.

If you were somehow under the impression that it was an attempt to impose my authority over others with facts and evidence, you're grossly mistaken.

 

[Miguel Cairo]

Fun fact: The original name for World in Motion was E For England, but the FA said no.

Peter Hook’s book “Substance”, which I trust you read and enjoyed, told the story of them all doing ecstasy for the first time in Ibiza recording Technique and how unproductive most of the recording sessions were because they all slept all day. Apparently one of the Happy Mondays roadies came down to visit them and then brought back ecstasy to Manchester, introducing it to the city and basically laying the ground for Manchester.

 

[kihei]

It's arguing against something that wasn't argued. Nobody is saying if The Beatles didn't make the music that they did early on, they wouldn't be as beloved as they are today. That's obvious and silly to point out. The point that was made is that The Beatles gained a massive advantage to get their less radio-friendly music out to large audiences, critics, popular culture by having gained worldwide fame as radio pop stars beforehand. The world would indulge them more and this point is independent of the idea that the music was very good in and of itself.

So what? So they had some advantage that the Velvets didn't? Hell, yes, they were the Beatles, that was their advantage. Nobody saw them at the time as "just" radio pop stars. Musically and culturally, the band hit like a tsunami. And what kept it going wasn't chance or dumb luck, but that the band was so damn good at what they were doing. They were such gifted songwriters that they were able to take their audience with them as they began to explore more challenging music. I wouldn't sneer at those early pop songs either, which still sound pretty damn good to me. The Velvets were seen as a really great niche band, deliberately removed from the main stream--a daring, experimental, risk-taking Manhattan crew--with Warhol providing artistic cred initially. They may be the best American band in history, but they made very different music than the Beatles, great music, but better? I guess if you love VU enough, you can think so.

 

[Miguel Cairo]

Also, The Beatles early work rules and I wish people would stop implying otherwise in here. I’m not saying “I Want To Hold Your Hand” or “Ticket To Ride” are their best work, but The Beatles were better at that kind of song than just about any other band I’ve ever heard.

 

[NyQuil]

In order to reach the insane rabid fandom of Beatlemania, the music did have to be (or at the very least benefited from being) limited to something simpler, more restrictive, and less interesting/humanistic that reached the widest, lowest common denominator of audiences. Even though it was still arguably very good, once they removed those shackles and stopped pandering to it, their music became much more personal and artistically uncompromising to the specific things that they want to express most-- something that I think inherently will alienate a lot of the more casual fans that made Beatlemania possible in the first place.

What I disagree with here is the unspoken assertion that they deliberately and intentionally restricted their musical sensibilities and capacities in the interest of producing popular music.

The implication is that, were it not for the need to become popular and please their labels and representation, that they could have simply gone out and written and released Rubber Soul or Sgt. Pepper.

Whereas I see it as more of a musical evolution both in terms of their own capacities as well as the tastes of their audience. I don't think it was their popularity that restricted their early music but rather their own limitations as a band and as individual songwriters.

I think this tendency naturally exists in most art-- there are progressively greater diminishing returns in quality, nuance, and personalization the more you try to please everyone at the same time (and there is at least "potential" for greater rewards the deeper down that rabbit hole you explore, often at the expense of broad appeal). Nearly everything specific, organic, honest, creative, and personal can be viewed as "niche" in some way and to some degree, but this happens to also be where the most satisfying and rewarding value tends to be drawn, in my opinion.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this opinion.

Mainly it lies in this idea that popular art is the result of actively "trying to please everyone" when that may simply be an outcome or a result of what is created.

Again, I think this way of thinking relies on this belief that everyone has unique sensibilities and the most honest, creative and artistic work is something that only you (or few others) can personally understand, grasp or enjoy.

There are a lot of songs out there by my favourite artists were never released as singles or appeared on Greatest Hits albums that I really enjoy.

But when I'm honest with myself, there are many songs out there that are universally regarded as the band's best song, are widely popular, and by any objective measure also represent the peak of that band's musical ambitions and abilities.

Lack of artistic compromise can be very good in this respect, and alienating many viewers in the process is a very natural phenomenon that shouldn't be viewed as some sort of blight on the work (it's often necessary to reach certain heights). This is the point I'm making, and I'm sure you can see it to varying degrees in media as well.

Personally, I think the unfortunate extension of this frame of mind is that something isn't adequately personal, organic, honest, creative or specific if it doesn't somehow alienate a sufficient number of people.

My issue is that it means that the opinions of other people factor into your quality assessment.

Who it alienates or doesn't should be irrelevant.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

So what? So they had some advantage that the Velvets didn't? Hell, yes, they were the Beatles, that was their advantage. Nobody saw them at the time as "just" radio pop stars. Musically and culturally, the band hit like a tsunami. And what kept it going wasn't chance or dumb luck, but that the band was so damn good at what they were doing. They were such gifted songwriters that they were able to take their audience with them as they began to explore more challenging music. I wouldn't sneer at those early pop songs either, which still sound pretty damn good to me. The Velvets were seen as a really great niche band, deliberately removed from the main stream--a daring, experimental, risk-taking Manhattan crew--with Warhol providing artistic cred initially. They may be the best American band in history, but they made very different music than the Beatles, great music, but better? I guess if you love VU enough, you can think so.

* Grumbles *

NOBODY is denying this. I like early 60s pop music. I agree with most of what you're saying, but that simply declaring that their advantage was simply as being The Beatles is reductive and I wasn't saying that The Beatles were * just * musicians for teenagers but it was * part * of their appeal and that these external factors help prop an act. I am in no way, shape or form arguing that VU or Joy Division's music would have had the same success in the exact same circumstances (in fact, I don't think so at all). Nor did I even suggest that The Beatles success came out of dumb luck or chance or superficial qualities (I LIKE the Beatles and specifically explained that their work, which was good, was independent of their circumstances and still had to be worthy to achieve the heights that they did). Man, for all this talk of dismissiveness on my end, it is rich that not worshipping at the altar of Saint-Beatles and having a different opinion can be met without a hint of irony with 'Can't be reasoned with', 'GTFO' and 'You can think so' as if I'm some loon rambling from within an asylum.

 

[NyQuil]

Also, The Beatles early work rules and I wish people would stop implying otherwise in here. I’m not saying “I Want To Hold Your Hand” or “Ticket To Ride” are their best work, but The Beatles were better at that kind of song than just about any other band I’ve ever heard.

A lot of English rock music has its roots in the blues and in skiffle which by necessity didn't have a lot of variation in it.

I find it hard to take issue with the lack of creativity in it when it is a direct consequence of the style of music of the time.

Jimmy Page:



Rolling Stones:

 

[Spring in Fialta]

What I disagree with here is the unspoken assertion that they deliberately and intentionally restricted their musical sensibilities and capacities in the interest of producing popular music.

Didn't they openly admit this with (I'm paraphrasing) 'We didn't feel what we were doing and presenting was what we were really about' ?

 

[NyQuil]

Didn't they openly admit this with (I'm paraphrasing) 'We didn't feel what we were doing and presenting was what we were really about' ?

I get that, but I also think that the Beatles who said this weren't the same people who wrote their original hits and played on Hamburg's Reeperbahn.

There's always a tension between the band, the audience, and the label with respect to sticking to what works and evolving musically.

The Beach Boys quarreled famously because Mike Love wanted to stick with the "formula" of "surfing and girls" and Brian Wilson wanted to rise to the challenge that Rubber Soul had tossed down.

I admire bands that are able to adopt a professional attitude, take their progression seriously, and try to expand their sonic footprint and musical skills despite the pressure to stand pat.

A band like the Red Hot Chili Peppers could have easily settled on their laurels as a California punk band, but instead chose to integrate funk, prog-rock, folk and any number of other styles into their music.

In some cases, they actually evolve in a manner that makes them more popular, not less, despite the increased attention by the band towards their artistry. This is where I don't understand @Shareefruck.

A band like the Police made much more complex and musically ambitious work after their first few albums that had relied heavily on reggae and punk sensibilities. These later albums ended up being far more popular and more critically acclaimed for the most part.

Despite that, you'll always find a critic who thinks they "sold out" and got away from their "raw and unvarnished" sound.

Ironically for this particular type of critic, if they had simply doubled down on their existing formula, they would have been more artistically honest, in direct contrast to a situation like the Beatles or the Beach Boys.

 

[Shareefruck]

What I disagree with here is the unspoken assertion that they deliberately and intentionally restricted their musical sensibilities and capacities in the interest of producing popular music.

The implication is that, were it not for the need to become popular and please their labels and representation, that they could have simply gone out and written and released Rubber Soul or Sgt. Pepper.

Whereas I see it as more of a musical evolution both in terms of their own capacities as well as the tastes of their audience. I don't think it was their popularity that restricted their early music but rather their own limitations as a band and as individual songwriters.



I disagree wholeheartedly with this opinion.

Mainly it lies in this idea that popular art is the result of actively "trying to please everyone" when that may simply be an outcome or a result of what is created.

Again, I think this way of thinking relies on this belief that everyone has unique sensibilities and the most honest, creative and artistic work is something that only you (or few others) can personally understand, grasp or enjoy.

There are a lot of songs out there by my favourite artists were never released as singles or appeared on Greatest Hits albums that I really enjoy.

But when I'm honest with myself, there are many songs out there that are universally regarded as the band's best song, are widely popular, and by any objective measure also represent the peak of that band's musical ambitions and abilities.



Personally, I think the unfortunate extension of this frame of mind is that something isn't adequately personal, organic, honest, creative or specific if it doesn't somehow alienate a sufficient number of people.

My issue is that it means that the opinions of other people factor into your quality assessment.

Who it alienates or doesn't should be irrelevant.

1. I am not trying to assert that (perhaps pander is the wrong word to use)-- I am arguing that this is the result, whether it was a conscious or subconscious decision. Even if it was a necessary evolution that should be appreciated on those grounds, their ability to express what would end up being the most interesting things about themselves was lacking at that point in comparison (yet was more widely appealing and accessible despite that).

2. Again, I am not intending to assert anything about "active" or "inactive"-- that's pretty irrelevant to my actual point-- I am arguing that the "doing things that would please everyone" part has a tendency to inhibit potential quality more often than it enhances it-- It doesn't have to, but it often does (again, once you get past a certain threshold). While I agree that a band's magnum opus is likely to be appreciated as such by a large enough number of people, I would not agree that it's likely to coincide with being their most popular track-- usually, that's not the case, nor should it be expected to be, in my experience.

3. I'm describing what I've observed as typical patterns of outcomes, not what I factor into my quality assessments. It's only relevant in that I think it tends to happen that way more often the opposite way (contrary to the perspective that I was arguing against, which is that popularity correlates with quality), not that I think it ought to work that way or must work that way without exception. I have included that qualifier several times. I am saying that if anything, it tends to lean in that direction more often than it leans in the opposite direction, once you get past a certain threshold. That could be 60% of the time, 70% of the time, whatever-- There is obviously a give and take to that. Obviously it isn't true that if something is remotely popular, it can't be good, or if something is remotely good, it can't be popular.

 

[Miguel Cairo]

I think Ian would be so moved to know that me mentioning the 40th anniversary of his death inspired a discussion about the relative qualities of the early Beach Boys against their work on Pet Sounds.

 

[Shareefruck]

In some cases, they actually evolve in a manner that makes them more popular, not less, despite the increased attention by the band towards their artistry. This is where I don't understand@Shareefruck.

The way you should take this is that assuming that a band is already relatively established (aka. past a certain threshold), I find this scenario at least a bit less likely than the opposite scenario. A band with relative recognition and audience will probably have a harder time becoming more popular by trying to be more artistic than they are than by other methods, even though both approaches could potentially pay off. Nobody is speaking in absolutes.

The threshold thing is important because we are talking about big name popular and artistic bands here, not unknown artists trying to make a name for themselves. The degree of popularity you earn starts to lose relevance to how good you are once you've already made a name for yourself, IMO.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Personally I think Joy division is a top 3 band without even considering New Order

 

[Shareefruck]

Out of curiosity, @kihei, aren't there less acclaimed, decorated, and popular directors than Spielberg who you would consider better than Spielberg? If so, shouldn't you be on the other side of the argument, even if you happen to think the Stones are as good as their recognition indicates (which is fair enough)? Surely you admire the Stones by their own merits and not because of some notion of popular consensus that has been established about them, right? If there was less of a consensus and for whatever reason, the Stones were less appreciated than you thought they ought to be (but their music remained the same), would you find the argument any more or less ridiculous?

 

[OzzyFan]

Nobody implied that.
It's the closest you can get to something verifiable, I agree, but applied to something that inherently is not actually verifiable to begin with (for pretty much the reasons you proceeded to give), rendering the closest attempt still pretty marginal and meaningless. That would be my argument, I'm not sure if you agree with it or not.

I agree with everything you said afterwards, and discussions and arguments about our ideas of greatness can only involve sharing our personal perspectives of them-- it's impossible for us to have any greater certainty than that. However, even with that in mind, our best attempts at a subjective answer is still more meaningful and compelling than the misguided and impossible best attempts we can make at a verifiable one, in my opinion. To impose the latter as an authority on the former simply because of some flimsy notion of consensus makes no sense.

That's fair enough. I don't think it's as nearly as lacking of weight as you do(general popular consensus's), but I definitely understand where you are coming from on that.

 

[Shareefruck]

So what? So they had some advantage that the Velvets didn't? Hell, yes, they were the Beatles, that was their advantage. Nobody saw them at the time as "just" radio pop stars. Musically and culturally, the band hit like a tsunami. And what kept it going wasn't chance or dumb luck, but that the band was so damn good at what they were doing. They were such gifted songwriters that they were able to take their audience with them as they began to explore more challenging music. I wouldn't sneer at those early pop songs either, which still sound pretty damn good to me. The Velvets were seen as a really great niche band, deliberately removed from the main stream--a daring, experimental, risk-taking Manhattan crew--with Warhol providing artistic cred initially. They may be the best American band in history, but they made very different music than the Beatles, great music, but better? I guess if you love VU enough, you can think so.

The argument being made regarding early Beatles being the catalyst for their popularity was that:

1. I assume that most of us agree that on balance, their Rubber Soul -> Abbey Road period was higher quality than their Please Please Me -> Help period.
2. My suggestion was that if you took their Please Please Me -> Help period and replaced it with equivalent-standard material to their Rubber Soul -> Abbey Road period, they would be a significantly greater band (and admittedly, be acknowledged as such by many) while most likely enjoying less widespread popularity and name recognition than they currently have (even though they would probably still be pretty popular and much more so than VU).
3. Therefore, this is a fitting example of popularity and consensus not being a meaningful indicator of greatness. Which is a counter point to the notion that it is.

While a few people may disagree with premise #1 (even then it's not implied that they're wrong, just that they'd need a different example), this doesn't really imply any of the things you're taking offense to-- Particularly nothing about early Beatles being bad, inconsequential, dumb luck, or worthy of sneer and mockery.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

The argument being made regarding early Beatles being the catalyst for their popularity was that:

1. I assume that most of us agree that on balance, their Rubber Soul -> Abbey Road period was higher quality than their Please Please Me -> Help period.
2. My suggestion was that if you took their Please Please Me -> Help period and replaced it with equivalent-standard material to their Rubber Soul -> Abbey Road period, they would be a significantly greater band (and admittedly, be acknowledged as such by many) while most likely enjoying less widespread popularity and name recognition than they currently have (even though they would probably still be pretty popular and much more so than VU).
3. Therefore, this is a fitting example of popularity and consensus not being a meaningful indicator of greatness. Which is a counter point to the notion that it is.

While a few people may disagree with premise #1 (even then it's not implied that they're wrong, just that they'd need a different example), this doesn't really imply any of the things you're taking offense to-- Particularly nothing about early Beatles being bad, inconsequential, dumb luck, or worthy of sneer and mockery.

I’m probably in the minority. But I like their Help, She Loves You, Hard Days Night etc period as much as the Revolver, Abbey Road etc. Even though I recognize that it is musically much simpler. I just think it has a raw power and joy and energy that the other eras of their music didn’t match. Listening to John on Help you can just feel the pain and loneliness in his voice. I think it’s as good as anything they did. I love all of their music and that era is as good as any of the others, imo.
The Beatles had so many good eras though and I liked them all in different ways. I think it was their adaptability and always evolving that helped define their greatness.

 

[kihei]

Out of curiosity, @kihei, aren't there less acclaimed, decorated, and popular directors than Spielberg who you would consider better than Spielberg? If so, shouldn't you be on the other side of the argument, even if you happen to think the Stones are as good as their recognition indicates (which is fair enough)? Surely you admire the Stones by their own merits and not because of some notion of popular consensus that has been established about them, right? If there was less of a consensus and for whatever reason, the Stones were less appreciated than you thought they ought to be (but their music remained the same), would you find the argument any more or less ridiculous?

The argument being made regarding early Beatles being the catalyst for their popularity was that:

1. I assume that most of us agree that on balance, their Rubber Soul -> Abbey Road period was higher quality than their Please Please Me -> Help period.
2. My suggestion was that if you took their Please Please Me -> Help period and replaced it with equivalent-standard material to their Rubber Soul -> Abbey Road period, they would be a significantly greater band (and admittedly, be acknowledged as such by many) while most likely enjoying less widespread popularity and name recognition than they currently have (even though they would probably still be pretty popular and much more so than VU).
3. Therefore, this is a fitting example of popularity and consensus not being a meaningful indicator of greatness. Which is a counter point to the notion that it is.

While a few people may disagree with premise #1 (even then it's not implied that they're wrong, just that they'd need a different example), this doesn't really imply any of the things you're taking offense to-- Particularly nothing about early Beatles being bad, inconsequential, dumb luck, or worthy of sneer and mockery.

The problem is I just don't buy your premises to begin with. We are evaluating these bands from radically different perspectives. You are a "peak" guy, through and through, and I don't give a tinker's damn about peak in the least. If I did, My Bloody Valentine would be in my top ten bands and they aren't close to that despite Loveless being my all-time favourite rock album. I am more a "career" guy, I try to judge bands on a broad number of factors, including most of the ones that you disregard or minimize or frown upon. To me The Beatles had numerous peaks, not just one, and all of those peaks produced some of the greatest songs in pop/rock music history, like about 100 of them (if I am being hyperbolic here it isn't by much). I like the VU, too, very much, probably my favourite US band. But I don't think comparing them to The Beatles does them any favours.

They're all tonnes of directors that I would consider superior to Spielberg, but could you rephrase the question, please, as I am not sure exactly what you are asking.

 

[Shareefruck]

I’m probably in the minority. But I like their Help, She Loves You, Hard Days Night etc period as much as the Revolver, Abbey Road etc. Even though I recognize that it is musically much simpler. I just think it has a raw power and joy and energy that the other eras of their music didn’t match. Listening to John on Help you can just feel the pain and loneliness in his voice. I think it’s as good as anything they did. I love all of their music and that era is as good as any of the others, imo.
The Beatles had so many good eras though and I liked them all in different ways. I think it was their adaptability and always evolving that helped define their greatness.

That's fine, then I guess the hypothetical wouldn't really apply to you, and you can look at one of the other ones brought up instead that do. The point of the example is not to convince you that early Beatles is worse than late Beatles and that you must comply, the point of the example is to help illustrate the reasoning being argued to the majority of people who this does happen to be applicable to.

The problem is I just don't buy your premises to begin with. We are evaluating these bands from radically different perspectives. You are a "peak" guy, through and through, and I don't give a tinker's damn about peak in the least. If I did, My Bloody Valentine would be in my top ten bands and they aren't close to that despite Loveless being my all-time favourite rock album. I am more a "career" guy, I try to judge bands on a broad number of factors, including most of the ones that you disregard or minimize or frown upon. To me The Beatles had numerous peaks, not just one, and all of those peaks produced some of the greatest songs in pop/rock music history, like about 100 of them (if I am being hyperbolic here it isn't by much). I like the VU, too, very much, probably my favourite US band. But I don't think comparing them to The Beatles does them any favours.

They're all tonnes of directors that I would consider superior to Spielberg, but could you rephrase the question, please, as I am not sure exactly what you are asking.

That may in fact turn out to be the case, but if The Beatles hypothetically had a career that spanned the same number of years, with the only difference being that the pre-Rubber Soul albums were replaced with albums that were the same quality as the post Rubber Soul albums, why would that have anything to do with favoring peaks? That would be a pretty clear improvement in career consistency and prolificness as well, would it not? If you actually don't consider the pre-Rubber Soul material any weaker at all, then I guess the analogy wouldn't apply to you, but surely you could understand how someone could see it that way and at least follow the actual reasoning being argued as logically valid, no? (about the irrelevance of popularity, not about Beatles/Stones vs. VU/Joy Division specifically).

If the premise isn't something you can sympathize with, let me see if I can get it a little closer-- If every song the Beatles ever wrote were hypothetically as strong as A Day in the Life while remaining distinct from it but made under similar conditions and with a similar level of accessibility, wouldn't you consider that a (let's just say potentially and not even necessarily) better and higher quality band/overall career than what they currently are? And wouldn't you expect them to (again, let's say potentially and not necessarily) be less popular among the masses, without the benefit of Beatlemania? What that would suggest about the correlation between popularity and quality is the only thing being argued here, and the only reason these hypotheticals are being brought up in the first place, not any of the offenses you took from it.

---

On the second point, to be honest, I'm having trouble telling if you actually disagree with the principle of what's being argued back and forth right now regarding popularity and acclaim being an authority. I'm wondering if you're just stuck on the specific comparison itself being unacceptable to you rather than actually agreeing with what's being debated against it by others. If you ignore the actual band-to-band comparisons for a moment, can you clarify if you actually do favor the argument being lobbed against us here, that the degree that something is more widely appreciated and popular by consensus should be considered an authority on what is reasonable to consider better or worse? I'll clarify the Spielberg question again if that actually is the case-- there may be no need to if I was just mistaken about that.

 

[Shareefruck]

Also, instead of getting caught up in all these individual disagreements above, @kihei, @Amerika, and @OzzyFan's comments inadvertently reminded me of what I think is actually the most important point here, which is that if it really does just come down to having wildly different perspectives about what is worth valuing (probably true), I'm not sure why this has been met with the degree of mockery, dismissiveness, and possessiveness that it has to begin with. I don't think I initially tried to impose my value judgements on anyone else in this thread (or argue why anyone SHOULDN'T find the Stones better than Joy Division-- at least I don't think I did-- it has been three years), I just gave my perspective in answering the thread question and provided consistent and understandable reasoning for why I feel that way when challenged. Even if you happen to have the opposite perspective that popularity and acclaim has greater value and authority to you than it does to me (you can have your reasons for feeling that way), there would still be no reason to suggest that THIS perspective ought to have any authority on alternative ones. There are really no grounds to insist that ONLY this type of perspective is warranted and acceptable when using the term "great". It does ultimately depend on what qualities a person respects and sees value in.

From what I can see, holes and inconsistencies aren't really being poked in these perspectives, either (and nothing's really been shown to be actually wrong or harmful about them). People seem to just be insisting that "You ought to share my value system, which would lead to these consensus conclusions," (and oddly rejecting contrary reasoning on the basis that it doesn't apply to THEM for some weird reason) as if not valuing and respecting the same things they do is somehow a direct insult to that thing.

While we can respectfully continue to dispute our differences, THAT attitude itself seems pretty unreasonable to me, first and foremost.

 

[kihei]

In the judgement of a work of art, I don't think popularity has any place at all. That being said, I can never understand why popularity is held against a work of art. If a work of art is popular, that's a positive thing as far as I am concerned, though it has no place in evaluation. The Beatles popularity is pretty impressive and certainly not of the Donny Osmond variety, though; the effect that they had on pop culture was amazing to behold at the time. Through every stage of their development they managed to take most of their initial audience along with them and actually add to their numbers while making wonderfully creative music. In a way they are exemplars of what artistry can sometimes accomplish. While their popularity doesn't influence my estimation of their music--some of their most popular songs are among my least favourites--the Beatle's cultural significance dwarfs other rock bands. Kind of hard not to notice. Even if it shouldn't be a determining criteria in evaluating their music, it's a nice feather in their collective cap, to say the least.

Your penultimate paragraph makes my head hurt. How do you subtract Beatlemania from the Beatles? Why would anybody want to unless stretching to make a point not grounded in reality. If, like me, you think popularity should not be a way of judging artistic endeavour, why would you care if the Beatles were more popular or less popular as seen through a lens of hypotheticals that never saw the light of day in the first place? In the end what would it prove and who would care?

Final paragraph: My standard answer is no, popularity is not a factor in determining the quality of a work of art. In film and the other established arts this is pretty clear cut. But in pop art, maybe less so, which is why they call it pop art to begin with, I guess. If it is a popular art, then shouldn't popularity be a factor? For me, no; for others, yes, it seems--but then are they really talking about art anymore? I don't think so. All that says to me is that pop art has lousy standards.