Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ian Anderson and the Beatles
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Ian Anderson and the Beatles

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
Message
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 19614
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sean Trane Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2018 at 03:17
Originally posted by Rednight Rednight wrote:

Yeah, John Lennon started to make it known that he didn't like the Beatles around 1966. Pete Townshend once said that he and his bandmates found the Beatles laughable.


TBH, I still find nowadays pre-Revolver Beatles, if not laughable, somewhat derisory pop. Not that The Stones were that much much better in their earlier years

The Stones were a rock band that forayed into pop territory once in a while, while The Beatles were a pop band that forayed once in a while into rock territory.

Originally posted by dr
 wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by Hercules Hercules wrote:

I was a teenager in the 60s and never liked either The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. I've never owned an album by either of them.

My taste in 60s non-prog rock was Creedence Clearwater Revival, Fleetwood Mac, The Yardbirds and Cream. Later, I got into Rory Gallagher.

I would rate Cosmo's Factory way ahead of anything by The Beatles and The Stones

CCR was a great band (on my list of excellent bands) but by the by the time they recorded their first LP in 68 both the Beatles and Stones had been in the studio making great music for over 4 years.
To say they weren't somewhat  influenced by the Beatles and Stones would probably not be true.....
and to say that LP was 'way ahead' of anything by the other 2 famous bands is exaggeration at it's finest.
;)


While I love CCR's boogier/rockier side (Keep -a-Chooglin'), I can't stand their country rock side (Green River and Poor Boys), and Cosmo's Factory is close to 50/50, while Bayou and Pendulum are heavily on the rock side (debut is cool as well)

Originally posted by Catcher10 Catcher10 wrote:

Wow....every time I have mention my dislike of the fab four for pretty much all the reasons stated here, as well as other reasons, I was labeled a musical lunatic.

Well.....welcome to my club, the best one in PA!!!!
LOLClapThumbs Up


But is it actually really possible to have a dislike the Fab Four, without it being some kind of a poseur stance??

I mean, even, my grandparents (who died in the 80's) thought they were "interesting artistes" (this meant they were impressed), though they couldn't help but disapprove the youth culture,  back then!


Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2018 at 05:13
@The.Crimson.King
I've said the same many times before but I never said it better! I'm so happy that I lived through that exciting and always changing musical era. You knew something else that was great was coming, from many artists of that time, but you never expected what came about! Take an album like Days OF Future Passed. It would not have existed without the Beatles and it was as good as anything by the Beatles.


Edited by SteveG - August 25 2018 at 09:53
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
The.Crimson.King View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4591
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote The.Crimson.King Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2018 at 09:50
Originally posted by Dellinger Dellinger wrote:

I do like the Beatles... much more than the Stones, actually. But they are far from being my favourite band, and it's been difficult for me to understand their mythic reputation. Now I guess I understand it better.

Here's an interesting list I found onlline a few years back called, "36 Beatle Firsts".  It gives a lot of groundwork for what has become their "mythic reputation".  I don't think it's 100% completely accurate as the author's musical knowledge seems limited to "bands" in the pop/rock world, but it's close and makes an interesting read.  Anyway, it gives an idea of the scope of the Beatles innovation back at a time when the music industry, radio, live performance and the world in general was very different than today Wink

1. First band to have a lead guitar (George Harrison 1962). Rock bands had "lead guitars" before the Beatles, to be sure, but the Beatles invented the term. Since that time, nearly every band has a guitarist so designated, and the position has gained prestige similar to the first violin (concertmaster) of classical symphonies.

2. First band to put out an album having more than eight or ten songs (Please Please Me 1962). Pop albums always contained ten or fewer unrelated songs and the songs were usually only two or three minutes long. The Beatles consciously wanted to give their patrons more value for their money and chose to put fourteen songs on their first album. They continued this practice, either with more than ten songs or with longer songs, on each of their albums.

3. First band to put out an album on which they wrote half the songs (Please Please Me 1962). It was normal in the world of popular music for a singer mainly to perform songs written by others. Elvis, for example, wrote none of the songs that he made famous. It was a startling event when the Beatles released their first album with eight of fourteen songs written by members of the band.

4. First band to establish a collaboratory relationship with their producer (George Martin 1962). "[George Martin] became their arranger and record producer… [and] the role of record producer changed with him… Before him, the producer functioned in one of two ways: Either he would approach an album with a concept in mind and mold his artists to fit that concept, or he would be a technical clerk attempting to get a pretty song, prettily sung, on tape with a minimum of expense and creative interference. All this changed with the Beatles-Martin relationship." Milton Okun, music educator, producer, composer, conductor and editor of several publications of Beatles music

5. First band to use a harmonica (Love Me Do 1962). The harmonica was not considered a rock instrument until the Beatles used it in several songs; it then became common.

6. First band to combine ska with rock (I Saw Her Standing There 1962).

7. First band to write a song with recognizable artistic merit (I Want to Hold Your Hand 1963). "The melody of I Want to Hold Your Hand, when heard apart from its driving rock arrangement, can stand on its own." Milton Okun

8. First band to star in a feature film drama ("A Hard Day's Night" 1964). By 1964, the Beatles were popular enough (that is, commercially viable enough) to be featured in their own film. Now, of course, it is fairly common for popular bands to make movies. "A Hard Day's Night," incidentally, was the first film to use deliberately non-sequitur editing, now a staple technique of TV ads and other visual media.

9. First band to set a television viewing record by generating the world's largest TV audience (Ed Sullivan Show 1964). The record held for three years.

10. First band to do an album of all original songs (A Hard Day's Night 1964). The Beatles, concentrating more on writing their own songs, all but ceased with this album to include covers (songs by other artists) on their releases.

11. First band to use the guiro and claves in rock (And I Love Her 1964).

12. First band of the "British Invasion" (1964). Prior to the Beatles, no British rock artist had managed to have a hit song in the US. Beginning in 1964, and because the Beatles then occupied most of the top slots on the US charts, every big rock group in the US was British, and US rock artists and fans began imitating British culture and music. This phenomenon was nicknamed the "British Invasion."

13. First band to deliberately avoid repeating themselves. "In the recording marketplace, it is a rule of thumb that once you do your thing successfully, you do it again, with minor changes . . . What is startling about Lennon and McCartney's music is its consistent growth." Milton Okun

14. First band to play a stadium (Shea Stadium 1965). A band had never commanded such a large audience before. Incidentally, no technology was available at the time to carry the music to the audience; the Beatles had to use the stadium's public address system.

15. First band to create experimental sounds in the studio (Rubber Soul 1965). The Beatles began, with this album, to experiment with sound distortion, extensive overdubbing, and other creative techniques using the many new electronic recording devices that were invented at this time. These techniques soon became standard practice.

16. First band to combine East Indian music with rock (Norwegian Wood 1965). When George Harrison played the sitar for the first time on this song, the sitar became, for a few years, an essential instrument for many popular music groups.

17. First band to combine rock with classical music (Yesterday 1965). This hit song is accompanied by a string quartet in addition to traditional rock instruments. The song Eleanor Rigby (1966) has no electronic instruments, just a string quartet and Paul's acoustic guitar.

18. First band to make rock videos (short films, each with a hit song as the soundtrack). When touring became impossible, the Beatles reached their fans by making short films of themselves performing their songs, intercut with various unrelated scenes. While some critics consider the musical segments of "A Hard Day's Night" to be the first rock videos, these Beatles performance films are the first true rock videos. Thus, George Martin, the Beatles' producer, credited the band with "inventing" MTV. And, as with most of their innovations, it is now standard practice for a band to make a video or short film for each of their hit songs.

19. First band to utilize psychedelic rock (Revolver 1966). "The Beatles' next release, Revolver, was a complete departure musically. It combined heavy elements of psychedelia and Indian raga with straight pop and pop with orchestration, unified on Eleanor Rigby . . . The psychedelic period changed the sound of rock and roll forever, especially in terms of production. Compare the sound of a pre-1966 album to one recorded after 1966. The changes are remarkable. And the Beatles are responsible for much of that change. The Beatles' psychedelic music has influenced every rock form from 1967 to the present. Everything." Stuart Madow and Jeff Sobul, Introspect: The Beatles' Psychedelic Music

20. First band to do a song using a deliberately reversed lyric (Rain 1966). What is unusual about this song is that at one point the lyrics were recorded and reversed, while the music was not reversed. This new gimmick, which was subsequently used by many artists, started a craze in which rock fans tried to find hidden meanings in their favorite songs by playing them backward, whether the songs were engineered with reversed lyrics or not.

21. First band to utilize concept rock (Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 1967). Concept rock consists essentially in creating a new character or theme for oneself or one's band, using it for one album, then discarding it. The Beatles invented this amazingly versatile and entertaining new modus operandi and a large segment of rock industry followed their example.

22. First band to do a concept album (Sgt Pepper 1967). Prior to Sgt Pepper, rock albums were merely collections of short, unrelated songs, lacking any kind of unifying theme or idea. While some credit Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention with the first concept album (Freak Out), the Beatles made it a success and thus made the concept album a viable new form. "Pepper was the first concept album in history, not that the songs together told one story. The concept lies in the Beatles' creation of Sgt Pepper's band, which performs a show to a created audience. It has an opening, a performance and a closing, and a brilliant encore, A Day in the Life." Stuart Madow and Jeff Sobul.

23. First band to create songs with so many studio effects they could not be performed live (Sgt Pepper 1967). During their most creative period, the Beatles produced not only songs but whole albums that were impossible to perform live. Breaking tradition again, they created deliberately distorted recordings of their own voices and made artificial alterations to the sounds of their instruments. They used layer upon layer of overdubbing, and other innovative engineering techniques, to combine and create new sounds. Their heavy concentration on studio production even unwittingly led to a backlash: By the mid 1970s the majority of hit popular music albums had become so bland and uninspiring due to carefully sanitized studio production that a reactionary style known as punk rock was invented, starting a new wave of artistic creativity in the popular music industry.

24. First band to do a song that does not end with either a traditional fade-out or a short, simple chord (A Day in the Life 1967). The Beatles once again set out to break the rules with this song; it ends with a chord that is held a full forty seconds, the longest single chord in rock history. During the recording, the engineer slowly turned up the gain until the studio air conditioner could be heard humming away, so it may also be the first piece of concrete music produced by the rock industry.

The album Sgt Pepper was groundbreaking in many other ways, including:

25. First album in which every song contained distortion or other new and experimental sounds.

26. First album with no banding (breaks between songs).

27. First recording including sounds only a dog can hear.

28. First album to include material recorded on the run-out groove.

29. First album with the lyrics printed on the jacket.

30. First album with anything printed on the inner sleeve.

After Sgt Pepper, the Beatles continued to break the rules of popular music:

31. First band to do a song that fades out and fades in again (Strawberry Fields Forever 1967). This unexpected little trick once again pointed up the Beatles' ability to disrupt "the way things should be done." A year later, on their song Helter Skelter, they took this gimmick to its extreme.

32. First band to have a hit single longer than standard (Hey Jude 1968). Pop and rock singles of the era always consisted of a simple combination of verses (usually 16 measures each) and a bridge of contrasting material (usually 8 measures), making up a song less than three minutes long. The Beatles broke the mold again with this seven minute single.

33. First band to do an extended fade out (Hey Jude 1968). Songs are supposed to fade out relatively quickly, but Hey Jude fades out almost imperceptibly over four and a half minutes.

34. First band to do an album that did not have the band's name on it ("White" album 1968). The Beatles poked fun at the music industry with a solid white album jacket containing no printing or identification of any kind. Many bands since have released albums with similarly enigmatic jackets.

35. First band to do a double album of original material ("White" album 1968). Until this album, bands would only put out double albums containing some or all previously released material. The Beatles again broke new ground.

36. First band to do an entire song by sampling (cutting and manipulating taped sounds, not singing and playing instruments) (Revolution 9 1968). The song is the most experimental piece of rock music to emerge during the era. Sampling was a new innovation and, while some don't agree that Revolution 9 is music (that is, having pitch and rhythm) it is indeed music at its most primal.

Back to Top
TiddK View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: August 08 2018
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TiddK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2018 at 11:32
I was a child in Liverpool in the 60s, so The Beatles were "our band", though they were long gone. I was a real fan, though I also enjoyed the whole 60s pop thing hugely. Beatlemania was a massive phenomenon, with the main TV news covering their homecoming from foreign tours.

Having said that, it wasn't until Sgt Pepper's that I - we - realised that something really special was happening music-wise and the Fabs were in the forefront. I was never really into straight blues as such, but to be fair to the Stones, they were also innovative and creative and a whole lot more than 'just a blues band'.

My favourite Beatles album? I'd say it has usually been Abbey Road and it still is.

I can add a 37. to the above list (courtesy of composer Howard Goodall):
- first band to end a song musically with the equivalent of the unfinished structure of a liturgical "Amen" : Eleanor Rigby 1966.
(32. is untrue. Richard Harris with 7 minutes of 'Macarthur Park' hit in summer 1968, a few months before 'Hey Jude'. The original mould-breaker was The Animals' 'House Of The Rising Sun', the first hit over 4 minutes long.)
Back to Top
Tero1 View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: August 24 2018
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 64
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tero1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2018 at 15:27
Hmm, I had a post, it went to bot cleance. I loved all those, including Beatles Mac and CCR.
Back to Top
silverpot View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 19 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 841
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote silverpot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2018 at 17:52
@the. crimson.king  Very good list. Thanks. I'd be too lazy to point all this out.

I'll just add that the fabs was also at the forefront in popular art and fashion. For instance the cover art of Revolver, very innovative. I mean, compare it to Pet Sounds, hahaha.
Back to Top
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 26151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote richardh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 26 2018 at 02:06
In terms of prog The Beatles were massively important. In terms of the sixties only Zappa was as close to be as influential. The Stones were more attitude certainly Jagger and Richards were a great song writer combo but still well behind Lennon and McCartney ( yes in that order and notwithstanding that Macca is a bit of a tool!)
Back to Top
Fischman View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 21 2018
Location: Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fischman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 26 2018 at 17:46
I'm unaware of any significant Beatle influence on Days of Future Passed.  It was released within a couple months of Sgt Pepper, and while the Beatles had expanded pop significantly on Revolver and Rubber Soul, nothing on those albums points to anything like DOFP.  
Back to Top
Mortte View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: November 11 2016
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 5538
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mortte Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 26 2018 at 21:58
^Sgt was released 1st of June 1967. Days was recorded 9 May - 3 November 1967. Are you really thinking they didn´t hear anything of Sgt within those months they recorded Days? Also, Days has really much Beatles style pop in it´s songs, although it´s concept album.
 
There just aren´t great rock/pop band from the sixties that wasn´t at least unconsciusly influenced By Beatles.
Back to Top
Fischman View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 21 2018
Location: Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fischman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2018 at 03:35
Originally posted by Mortte Mortte wrote:


^Sgt was released 1st of June 1967. Days was recorded 9 May - 3 November 1967. Are you really thinking they didn´t hear anything of Sgt within those months they recorded Days? Also, Days has really much Beatles style pop in it´s songs, although it´s concept album.
 
There just aren´t great rock/pop band from the sixties that wasn´t at least unconsciusly influenced By Beatles.


Right. They started recording Days before Pepper was released. That album is such a new musical vision, and so wonderfully coherent that they couldn't have totally changed gears midstream. Whatever Beatle influence was on Days was already present before Pepper, and harkens back to an earlier Beatle sound (i.e. Peak Hour). But the whole concept album thing, as well as full integration with a symphony orchestra, were firsts and were approached independent of any Beatle influence. It's exaggeration to say Days couldn't have happened without Pepper or even without the Beatles in general. Parts of it might have sounded slightly different, but it would would have happened, and the things that make it unique would have been much the same.

Edited by Fischman - August 27 2018 at 03:42
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2018 at 04:00
Originally posted by Fischman Fischman wrote:

I'm unaware of any significant Beatle influence on Days of Future Passed.  It was released within a couple months of Sgt Pepper, and while the Beatles had expanded pop significantly on Revolver and Rubber Soul, nothing on those albums points to anything like DOFP.  
(*heavy sigh* The un thinking speak). There is no overt influence from the Beatles on Days Of Future Passed and I never said there was. The influence on the Moody's was making pop music "outside of the box", and a themed album totally supported by an orchestra is certainly that. The musical formulas were changing in the mid sixties and the Beatles enacted that change.

Edited by SteveG - August 27 2018 at 04:38
Back to Top
Fischman View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 21 2018
Location: Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fischman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2018 at 07:38
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Fischman Fischman wrote:

I'm unaware of any significant Beatle influence on Days of Future Passed.  It was released within a couple months of Sgt Pepper, and while the Beatles had expanded pop significantly on Revolver and Rubber Soul, nothing on those albums points to anything like DOFP.  
(*heavy sigh* The un thinking speak). There is no overt influence from the Beatles on Days Of Future Passed and I never said there was. The influence on the Moody's was making pop music "outside of the box", and a themed album totally supported by an orchestra is certainly that. The musical formulas were changing in the mid sixties and the Beatles enacted that change.

Awww, c'mon now...

With that kind of logic, anything creative or new that anybody did after about 1965 is all just because of the Beatles.  The Beatles probably did more to expand the pop/rock genre than any band in history, but they weren't the only ones to do so, or even the first.  It's ridiculous to say that any out of the box thinking wouldn't have happened without the Beatles.  

Do you really think that Syd/Floyd or Zappa wouldn't have done new and creative things had there been no Beatles?  Are those minds purely derivative and incapable of thinking outside the box without the lads from Liverpool telling them it's alright to do so?  Please.  Their music may not have sounded exactly like it did without the Beatles, but it sure as hell would have still been new and unique in some way.

So it's a huge stretch in general to say that nothing new and original would have existed without the fabs.  It is especially so in this case as nothing in the Beatle oeuvre points to doing a concept album with a symphony.  Maybe the use of the mellotron?  Even in that, it was Mike Pinder of the Moodies who first introduced the Beatles to the mellotron in the first place!  Moreover, the idea of doing a symphonic pop album came from Decca Records, who were looking to get a pop album out as a sort of demo album to show off their newest recording technology.  It had nothing to do with the Beatles.   
Back to Top
TiddK View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: August 08 2018
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TiddK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2018 at 09:31
Originally posted by Fischman Fischman wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

(*heavy sigh* The un thinking speak). There is no overt influence from the Beatles on Days Of Future Passed and I never said there was. The influence on the Moody's was making pop music "outside of the box", and a themed album totally supported by an orchestra is certainly that. The musical formulas were changing in the mid sixties and the Beatles enacted that change.

Awww, c'mon now...

With that kind of logic, anything creative or new that anybody did after about 1965 is all just because of the Beatles.  The Beatles probably did more to expand the pop/rock genre than any band in history, but they weren't the only ones to do so, or even the first.  It's ridiculous to say that any out of the box thinking wouldn't have happened without the Beatles.  

Do you really think that Syd/Floyd or Zappa wouldn't have done new and creative things had there been no Beatles?  Are those minds purely derivative and incapable of thinking outside the box without the lads from Liverpool telling them it's alright to do so?  Please.  Their music may not have sounded exactly like it did without the Beatles, but it sure as hell would have still been new and unique in some way.

So it's a huge stretch in general to say that nothing new and original would have existed without the fabs.  It is especially so in this case as nothing in the Beatle oeuvre points to doing a concept album with a symphony.  Maybe the use of the mellotron?  Even in that, it was Mike Pinder of the Moodies who first introduced the Beatles to the mellotron in the first place!  Moreover, the idea of doing a symphonic pop album came from Decca Records, who were looking to get a pop album out as a sort of demo album to show off their newest recording technology.  It had nothing to do with the Beatles.   

It's something that has never been definitively decided, the main reason being that you can't go back in time and see either what/who was influencing what/who, or what any kind of alternative history might have looked like.

One thing is quite certain - many bands were influenced to a greater or lesser extent by The Beatles, who were experimenting in all kinds of new directions and breaking down the barriers of what was thought possible in pop.

However, The Beatles themselves were influenced by what had gone before : by rock'n'roll, music hall, country, early Motown, soul. They didn't spring fully formed from a vacuum. There are all kinds of fusion in their early records, freely admitted by McCartney in later years.

They also weren't the first to be avant garde and experimental - perhaps that was the zeitgeist of the era? Miles Davis with Kind Of Blue, Dave Brubeck, Hank Marvin's guitar style, Chuck Berry with his fusions of country, r&b, zydeco etc. 

The big difference with The Beatles was that Beatlemania focused attention more on what those boys were doing, so their music reached more ears than others I've mentioned. But it was an age of give and take, and they were all at it. 

I have no idea whether The Beatles influenced The Moodies' Days Of Future Passed. It wouldn't be any use asking McCartney or Justin Heyward either, as there is little more unreliable than the individual memories of rock musicians. LOL
Back to Top
The.Crimson.King View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4591
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The.Crimson.King Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2018 at 09:41
As far as Syd/Floyd and the Beatles influence, the Floyd's psychedelic freak outs were a new thing but the connection is clear to me from the very English pop songs Syd wrote on Piper at the Gates of Dawn.  A couple excerpts from Syd's bio, "Lost in the Woods":

"'Strawberry Fields Forever' influence on Barrett's writing was immediate, and most timely as well.  It's distinctive stamp is evident in the version of 'Arnold Layne' that the Pink Floyd would shortly release."

and

"I was just very very excited; doing your first album, putting down your music on to tape.  And knowing that the Beatles are next door, doing Sgt Pepper.  I was a bit of a snob before that, a "jazz-o'.  And I didn't really believe that pop music meant anything at all.  When I heard Sergeant Pepper, it changed my attitude as to what people like us could do." - Rick Wright

From what I've read, Syd was obsessed with John Lennon which was beneficial in many ways and horrible in others (like Syd's famous meltdown - literally and figuratively for those that know the story LOL) on Top of the Pops.  When they finally got Syd to say why he sabotaged the bands 3rd ToTP's performance, his answer was something like, John Lennon doesn't have to do ToTP's, why should I?
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2018 at 10:04
Originally posted by Fischman Fischman wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Fischman Fischman wrote:

I'm unaware of any significant Beatle influence on Days of Future Passed.  It was released within a couple months of Sgt Pepper, and while the Beatles had expanded pop significantly on Revolver and Rubber Soul, nothing on those albums points to anything like DOFP.  
(*heavy sigh* The un thinking speak). There is no overt influence from the Beatles on Days Of Future Passed and I never said there was. The influence on the Moody's was making pop music "outside of the box", and a themed album totally supported by an orchestra is certainly that. The musical formulas were changing in the mid sixties and the Beatles enacted that change.

Awww, c'mon now...

With that kind of logic, anything creative or new that anybody did after about 1965 is all just because of the Beatles.  The Beatles probably did more to expand the pop/rock genre than any band in history, but they weren't the only ones to do so, or even the first.  It's ridiculous to say that any out of the box thinking wouldn't have happened without the Beatles.  

Do you really think that Syd/Floyd or Zappa wouldn't have done new and creative things had there been no Beatles?  Are those minds purely derivative and incapable of thinking outside the box without the lads from Liverpool telling them it's alright to do so?  Please.  Their music may not have sounded exactly like it did without the Beatles, but it sure as hell would have still been new and unique in some way.

So it's a huge stretch in general to say that nothing new and original would have existed without the fabs.  It is especially so in this case as nothing in the Beatle oeuvre points to doing a concept album with a symphony.  Maybe the use of the mellotron?  Even in that, it was Mike Pinder of the Moodies who first introduced the Beatles to the mellotron in the first place!  Moreover, the idea of doing a symphonic pop album came from Decca Records, who were looking to get a pop album out as a sort of demo album to show off their newest recording technology.  It had nothing to do with the Beatles.   
Do you really think a record company would have put out music by Sid Barrett's Floyd or Frank Zappa's Freak Out! had not the Beatles come about first? With Doo Wop, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley and Roy Orbison still the norm? Or do I have to sigh deeply again?

Edited by SteveG - August 27 2018 at 10:20
Back to Top
TiddK View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: August 08 2018
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TiddK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2018 at 10:25
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:


Do you really think a record company would have put out music by Sid Barrett's Floyd or Frank Zappa's Freak Out! had not the Beatles come about first? With Doo Wop, Buddy Holly and Roy Orbison still the norm? Or do I have to sigh deeply again?
Miles Davies? John Coltrane? Dave Brubeck? Ike Turner? Hank Marvin? Chuck Berry? Sister Rosetta Tharpe? Joe Meek? Ray Charles?
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2018 at 10:33
Originally posted by TiddK TiddK wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:


Do you really think a record company would have put out music by Sid Barrett's Floyd or Frank Zappa's Freak Out! had not the Beatles come about first? With Doo Wop, Buddy Holly and Roy Orbison still the norm? Or do I have to sigh deeply again?
Miles Davies? John Coltrane? Dave Brubeck? Ike Turner? Hank Marvin? Chuck Berry? Sister Rosetta Tharpe? Joe Meek? Ray Charles?
Many are my favs but they are not pop. Try again.
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
Fischman View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 21 2018
Location: Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fischman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2018 at 11:58
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Fischman Fischman wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Fischman Fischman wrote:

I'm unaware of any significant Beatle influence on Days of Future Passed.  It was released within a couple months of Sgt Pepper, and while the Beatles had expanded pop significantly on Revolver and Rubber Soul, nothing on those albums points to anything like DOFP.  
(*heavy sigh* The un thinking speak). There is no overt influence from the Beatles on Days Of Future Passed and I never said there was. The influence on the Moody's was making pop music "outside of the box", and a themed album totally supported by an orchestra is certainly that. The musical formulas were changing in the mid sixties and the Beatles enacted that change.

Awww, c'mon now...

With that kind of logic, anything creative or new that anybody did after about 1965 is all just because of the Beatles.  The Beatles probably did more to expand the pop/rock genre than any band in history, but they weren't the only ones to do so, or even the first.  It's ridiculous to say that any out of the box thinking wouldn't have happened without the Beatles.  

Do you really think that Syd/Floyd or Zappa wouldn't have done new and creative things had there been no Beatles?  Are those minds purely derivative and incapable of thinking outside the box without the lads from Liverpool telling them it's alright to do so?  Please.  Their music may not have sounded exactly like it did without the Beatles, but it sure as hell would have still been new and unique in some way.

So it's a huge stretch in general to say that nothing new and original would have existed without the fabs.  It is especially so in this case as nothing in the Beatle oeuvre points to doing a concept album with a symphony.  Maybe the use of the mellotron?  Even in that, it was Mike Pinder of the Moodies who first introduced the Beatles to the mellotron in the first place!  Moreover, the idea of doing a symphonic pop album came from Decca Records, who were looking to get a pop album out as a sort of demo album to show off their newest recording technology.  It had nothing to do with the Beatles.   
Do you really think a record company would have put out music by Sid Barrett's Floyd or Frank Zappa's Freak Out! had not the Beatles come about first? With Doo Wop, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley and Roy Orbison still the norm? Or do I have to sigh deeply again?

Sure, it's reasonable to think that evolution would have taken place.  It's just crazy to say that the whole 60s scene wouldn't have happened without the Beatles, no matter how much they overshadowed it.  The explosion was coming anyway.  I have said it might not have come in exactly the same form, or it might not have come as fast, but it would have come and original artists would have still been original.  That's how it works.  

Again, I refer you to You Really Got Me.  That was nothing less than an earth shattering ushering in of proto-punk with a serious distortion guitar that was unprecedented in popular music.  And it took place when the Beatles were still dropping sappy boy meets girl songs with standard 4/4 time on standard instruments, before they began their great musical expansion.  So, clearly there were those in the music industry ready and willing to take chances.  

I'm not saying the Beatles didn't shape things, or that they didn't hasten the evolution; clearly they did.  But evolution would have still occurred without them.  And again, Decca's push for DOFP had absolutely nothing to do with capitalizing on Beatle influence.  Everything about their push for that album was completely independent of said fabs.  
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2018 at 13:05
Originally posted by Fischman Fischman wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Fischman Fischman wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Fischman Fischman wrote:

I'm unaware of any significant Beatle influence on Days of Future Passed.  It was released within a couple months of Sgt Pepper, and while the Beatles had expanded pop significantly on Revolver and Rubber Soul, nothing on those albums points to anything like DOFP.  
(*heavy sigh* The un thinking speak). There is no overt influence from the Beatles on Days Of Future Passed and I never said there was. The influence on the Moody's was making pop music "outside of the box", and a themed album totally supported by an orchestra is certainly that. The musical formulas were changing in the mid sixties and the Beatles enacted that change.

Awww, c'mon now...

With that kind of logic, anything creative or new that anybody did after about 1965 is all just because of the Beatles.  The Beatles probably did more to expand the pop/rock genre than any band in history, but they weren't the only ones to do so, or even the first.  It's ridiculous to say that any out of the box thinking wouldn't have happened without the Beatles.  

Do you really think that Syd/Floyd or Zappa wouldn't have done new and creative things had there been no Beatles?  Are those minds purely derivative and incapable of thinking outside the box without the lads from Liverpool telling them it's alright to do so?  Please.  Their music may not have sounded exactly like it did without the Beatles, but it sure as hell would have still been new and unique in some way.

So it's a huge stretch in general to say that nothing new and original would have existed without the fabs.  It is especially so in this case as nothing in the Beatle oeuvre points to doing a concept album with a symphony.  Maybe the use of the mellotron?  Even in that, it was Mike Pinder of the Moodies who first introduced the Beatles to the mellotron in the first place!  Moreover, the idea of doing a symphonic pop album came from Decca Records, who were looking to get a pop album out as a sort of demo album to show off their newest recording technology.  It had nothing to do with the Beatles.   
Do you really think a record company would have put out music by Sid Barrett's Floyd or Frank Zappa's Freak Out! had not the Beatles come about first? With Doo Wop, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley and Roy Orbison still the norm? Or do I have to sigh deeply again?

Sure, it's reasonable to think that evolution would have taken place.  It's just crazy to say that the whole 60s scene wouldn't have happened without the Beatles, no matter how much they overshadowed it.  The explosion was coming anyway.  I have said it might not have come in exactly the same form, or it might not have come as fast, but it would have come and original artists would have still been original.  That's how it works.  

Again, I refer you to You Really Got Me.  That was nothing less than an earth shattering ushering in of proto-punk with a serious distortion guitar that was unprecedented in popular music.  And it took place when the Beatles were still dropping sappy boy meets girl songs with standard 4/4 time on standard instruments, before they began their great musical expansion.  So, clearly there were those in the music industry ready and willing to take chances.  

I'm not saying the Beatles didn't shape things, or that they didn't hasten the evolution; clearly they did.  But evolution would have still occurred without them.  And again, Decca's push for DOFP had absolutely nothing to do with capitalizing on Beatle influence.  Everything about their push for that album was completely independent of said fabs.  
First off, no one in this thread, including me, said that the entire sixties was due to the Beatles. Social change was coming in the sixties, Beatles or no Beatles. Secondly, the Beatles changed pop music in the sixties by changing the pop music industry. Namely, the American and British record companies. There is no linear correlation between an album like Revolver and Days Of Future Passed, musically speaking. The correlation is strictly on a business level. Initially, Decca wanted to make a classical record using a new recording technology. Soon after the Moody Blues were prompted to make an album split between pop and classical music, which they did. Why? Because Decca is the record company famous for turning the Beatles down five years earlier under Decca president Dick Rowe, who famously said that guitar bands were on the way out, and hence forth never missed a single opportunity to record and issue records by pop groups. Any pop groups. Thanks Beatles.

But that's just Decca. The rest of the music industry jumped on the Beatles' band wagon in any way possible in 1964, signing and recording numerous "British Invasion" bands from the Dave Clark Five to Peter and Gordon to Herman's Hermits in the hope that their own signings would duplicate the mania caused by the Beatles. Decca made out pretty well by signing the Stones soon after kicking themselves for letting the Beatles go to EMI. So the DC5, P&G, Herman's Hermits and the Stones all made out well. Again, thanks Beatles.

The point of this is that not all influences are musical. But other influences, like the ones the Beatles had on the music industry, resulted in helping to shape the pop music of the sixties. So, once again, thanks Beatles. Other popular genres like R&B and Soul owed nothing to the Beatles. But no one said that they did.


Edited by SteveG - August 27 2018 at 13:07
Back to Top
Fischman View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 21 2018
Location: Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1600
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fischman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2018 at 13:23
I understood that the Beatles affected the industry itself, not just the music.  

My point is that the industry would have adapted anyway, maybe differently and maybe not as fast, but it was coming no matter what.  With that in mind, and with Decca's core goal in mind, it seems to make sense that there was a new and innovative album planned, whether or not the Beatles were around or not.  

Yes, in 1964, record companies were tripping over each other to sign British Invasion acts in order to get a second hand piece of Beatlemania.  But recall that up through 1964, the Beatles hadn't yet demonstrated the innovation they would later become famous for.  They were still writing overwhelmingly simple boy meets girl tunes--they just did it with a sound and attitude, and those ear-pleasing vocal harmonies that really caught on.  The Dave Clark Five, etc, were not putting out safe three chord ditties just like the Beatles up to that point. As of 1964, the Who were far more ground breaking, so any willingness to sign them went well beyond just trying to lump them into the British Invasion.  The willingness of record companies to take a chance predates the Beatles musically taking a chance.  

I agree, the Beatles helped shape pop music in the 60s.  Are thanks in order?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  We don't know how things would have gone if groups/record companies hadn't been chasing the Beatles.  It may have evolved differently, but who's to say it would have been worse?  No way of knowing.  

It's not the real Beatle clone groups (DC5, Hermans Hermits, Monkees, etc) that make us wow about the golden age of rock music.  It's the Moodies, Hendrix, etc.  I gotta' think those artists would have still been making some awesome music even without the Beatle influence (musically or industrially).  

i don't deny they had influence.  I am skeptical of the notion that music couldn't have grown dramatically even without that influence.  The explosion was coming no matter what.  The Beatles just did a better job of riding that tide than anyone else.  


Edited by Fischman - August 27 2018 at 13:24
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.704 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.