MarcLister said:
How so?
If Apple Computers had lost today then it would have been simple - the ruling would have stopped Apple from branding their music store "Apple" and forced them to cease trading as such and set up a different company with a different name. There are no other content providers called apple so the ruling would have been pretty much limited to them. Trying to apply a wider context to the whole "involvement in music" would be a bit daft because in most situations, that is largely irrelevant.
Aside from that, if Apple were removed from the download market altogether overnight, do you really think the industry would fall over? I dont.
There would be someone in there within hours fighting for that huge gap in the market. Microsoft would probably be one of those no doubt.
As for the Beatles being "crap":
I am not a huge fan of the Beatles outright, but to label them as rubbish shows a truly astounding lack of musical knowledge on a basic level.
The detail required to put forward a full retort would be astronomical so I shall be brief..
At the time the Beatles "came out" they were making simple music. IIRC, their first proper release (Love Me Do, 1962) contained the standard format for the time, a few simple chords, easy to follow lyrics and a basic chord progression. Looks-wise they were there on stage in a traditional layout, much like every other band on the scene at the time.
The advancement from that point was remarkable - uses of modal changes just 4 years later in 1966 with the release of "Elanor Rigby" set them far, far apart from everyone else in pop. Introduction of videos rather than touring to concentrate on studio work was a fresh idea, allowing them to further innovate.
At the time, classical music was totally gone - nobody was releasing it, few composers about and the classical scene had resorted to abstract music like throwing tennis balls at an opened upright piano (I kid you not!). Jazz was the "pop" music of the time and that was getting stagnant since the mid-50s. There was little innovation in music anywhere outside of the pop world!
From then on, with Eastern influences, their music took on so many layers as to make them *the* innovators in music. The reel-to-reel setups they had in their studios (5+ reel-to-reels piggybacked and mixed live onto a master reel) was something that was pretty much unheard of at the time and led to them being able to produce records that sounded like nothing anyone had ever heard before.
Some info about the Sgt Peppers release:
http://www.jpgr.co.uk/pcs7027.html said:
It is fair to say that nobody has had more widespread influence on the world of music since Mozart - they effectively single-handedly revived music in the UK and for the most part, the western world. The US was putting out comparatively (musically) poor artists at the time - Elvis was a performer, not a composer and skill-for-skill, nobody in the world at that time was on a par with the Beatles. Everyone else took their stuff and learned from it and today the influence is still felt. Today, we have been spoiled by the rich land of sounds that meet our ears every time we hit play on the CD player - when the Beatles released their music it was mind bending - nobody had ever heard anything like it. I wonder how many people back in the mid-60s had ever heard a Sitar, let alone one being used on a pop record!
Far from being crap, they are in fact probably one of the top 5 most important artists / composers of all time.
Last edited:
