Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Do the Beatles get too much credit..
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Do the Beatles get too much credit..
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 20212223>
Poll Question: See opening post for question.
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
48 [32.88%]
95 [65.07%]
3 [2.05%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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: March 28 2020 at 04:14
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Revolver? Decent? Look at all the forgettable pop that was around in 1966! LOL

That's my opinion.

Honestly, even if there were no better albums, this doesn't make an album good, just a poor year for music.

But there were better albums for me, like Freak Out (Zappa), Roger The Engineer (Yardbirds), Pet Sounds (Beach Boys) and the underrated Psychedelic Lollipop (Blues Magoos).

But again, just my opinion.


I think 1966 was quite good year in music (not as great as 1967-1974, but close):
the Beatles: Revolver
Beach Boys: Pet Sounds
the Ventures: Where the Action Is
the Rolling Stones: Aftermath
Small Faces: s/t
the Ventures: Go With the Ventures
Bob Dylan: Blonde On Blonde
Yardbirds: s/t
John Mayal With Eric Clapton: Bluesbrakers
Donovan: Sunshine Supermen
the Byrds: Fifth Dimension
the Ventures: Wild Things!
Simon & Garfunkel: Parsley, Sage, Rosemary & Thyme
13th Floor Elevators: the Psychedelic Sounds Of...
the Kinks: Face To Face
Tim Buckley: s/t
Love: Da Capo
the Blues Project: Projections
Buffalo Springfield: s/t
Skip James: Today!
Cream: Fresh Cream
the Who: Quick One
Frank Zappa: Freak Out

I think there are also many others, but not yet listened them (or remember them).
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 04:46
Originally posted by Mortte Mortte wrote:

I think Cooperīs statement is true when thinking sixties. Beatles were then everywhere and I think you couldnīt avoid their influence even if you had wanted.
...

Hi,

This would be true TODAY ... but if you can make a sort of chart and line it up as much music as you can from 1935 until 2000, you will find that there are many "points" where the chart spikes, and the likelihood is that it would spike way higher than many of the others.

Remember that both the Beatles and Rolling Stones are on record as the worst business decisions EVER MADE, and the number of folks that turned them down is insane ... but when they started selling ... those b*****ds had the money to buy out all the small companies ... and take the business away ... there ... my paranoia for the day!

Originally posted by Mortte Mortte wrote:

...
Ian Anderson has said he wasn't influenced by the Beatles, although he liked them. I understand his point, he wanted to make Jethro unique, so he wanted to get influences to his band from much more rare artists.
...

To my ears, Ian has more roots in the folk scene that was going towards rock music in those very early days ... just like Bob Dylan was trashed silly by a very stupid press (owned by the studios that also produced the festival, BTW!!!) for doing the same thing ... going electric and the song becomes more rock minded automatically! 

But the "format" he used, was much more towards a rock song, than otherwise ... so saying he wasn't influenced, is probably not quite true ... but he always says things that are off kilter ... in the Rick Wakeman interview series he says that there is nothing rock can do that has not already been done ... which surprises Rick but Ian did not quite go into it ... so expecting him to trash that scene is not really a surprise ... I rather think in his earlier days that he thought himself an actor on stage ... and not appreciated, because the songs became huge hits right next to the ones he didn't care for!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5744 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 18:55
Wow, what a wonderful thread!!

It comes from 2010!!
"Happiness is real only when shared"
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5744 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 19:22
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I don't think many would dispute, any more than I would, that The Beatles were hugely influential and had a tremendous impact on music, but in terms of origination of musical ideas and true innovation, I think they're overrated. I don't doubt their importance at all, and I like this statement "It was the concept of creativity for the masses that makes them so important." What I do suspect is that they were being given exposure to a lot of underground music that was more innovative (asnd more musically astute associates such as George Martin helped to elevate the music).  I listen to the Beatles albums, and I can think of many more, that I would think, were more musically creative/ inventive before them. They popularised such ideas, I would say, but I doubt that they were as originative as quite a few claim.

Some claim that Sgt. Peppers was the first Prog album, but I hear others from the same time and earlier that seem like much more progressive rock.  It was an important album to Prog, I won't deny that.  I've seen claims made that tthat The Beatles originated Psychadelic Rock and Raga Rock, which is not true.  Musicians/ composers borrow ideas for music. Music is not born in a vacuum, other than the Hoover Symphony was born in a vacuum cleaner, and they adapt, that's progress, but I think that those who influenced The Beatles are not getting enough credit.

I totally agree.

Moreover, I think until 1966 the Beatles have published only 2-3 minutes pop-songs. They have enriched the pop songs with unreleased arrangements and studio effects, perfecting the format of the pop song verse-chorus (Rubber Soul and Revolver). Sgt Pepper is not a prog album, nor is it a concept album, it's simply an album where the Beatles created an introduction that is then reprised. Then, they have expanded some songs. Sgt Pepper is not even a real rock album, in fact there is very little rock music, there is Indian music, swing music, symphonic pop, melodic pop, music hall, pop mixed with avant-garde and finally even some rock songs. The Beatles have expanded their arrangements so much that they have become popular music musicians of all kinds. The Beatles (the White Album) again mixed songs of all musical genres, then the Beatles returned to rock in 1969 with Let It Be and Abbey Road. But in the meantime, between 1967 and 1969 rock music changed completely (Hendrix, Doors, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Family, King Crimson). 

The 2-3 minute pop song, which remained until the end the distinctly prevalent format of the Beatles, with a few exceptions, had been surpassed by all the real rock bands like the ones I mentioned above. With Abbey Road the Beatles manage to produce real rock in step with the times, as they had done in part with the White Album and with some Sgt Pepper songs. In addition, they build a mini suite on the second side, one of the first in the history of rock. The Beatles' contribution to the prog, in my opinion, as far as the arrangements is concerned is seen in Revolver, Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour, but as for the dilation of the format of the song, which is much more important, you see in Abbey Road. 

In short, the Beatles were experimenters of new instruments, new arrangements, new sound effects in the studio but on a compositional level they were not innovative, indeed they were retro, they were at the rearguard, in fact they were always attached to the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes verse-chorus. When they went beyond this format, they wrote absolute masterpieces (A Day in The Life, Abbey Road suite etc) but in general, their greatest value was to make commercial, palatable to all, every new musical cue coming in their era, being able to integrate it into the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes, which thus led to a level of compositional sophistication and exceptional arrangement. 

There are two types of great artists: those that bring a genre to perfection, and those that create a new genre, transversal, out of all rules, personal. The latter are the really innovative artists. The Beatles belong to the first category, but sometimes they have churned out in the second category, with few examples but extraordinary.
"Happiness is real only when shared"
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ivan_Melgar_M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 22:45
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


Your taste doesn't determine whether an album is great or good or average.  Your taste only tells you whether you like an album or not.  But let's leave that aside, what your taste doesn't decide is whether a band gets too much credit.

Of course not

I believe they were highly influential, the were pioneers, but not the best band in history as most sites and magazines say.

I read that John Lennon is one of the top 5 guitar players in Rock....Not remotely, McCartney is a bit closer, but not a top bass player either..I even read that Ringo is a top drummer...Please.

Harrison is IMO the closer to a virtuoso by far-

Why is Ringo in the R&R HoF?

Will never understand.
            
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 23:30
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


Your taste doesn't determine whether an album is great or good or average.  Your taste only tells you whether you like an album or not.  But let's leave that aside, what your taste doesn't decide is whether a band gets too much credit.

Of course not

I believe they were highly influential, the were pioneers, but not the best band in history as most sites and magazines say.

I read that John Lennon is one of the top 5 guitar players in Rock....Not remotely, McCartney is a bit closer, but not a top bass player either..I even read that Ringo is a top drummer...Please.

Harrison is IMO the closer to a virtuoso by far-

Why is Ringo in the R&R HoF?

Will never understand.


I agree with this except that I would rate McCartney and Ringo as the best musicians in the band.  But that being said, this kind of overrating is normal for bands that get popular and doesn't lead to the generation of conspiracy theories.  Geddy Lee gets voted as one of the top rock keyboardists, something he would not agree with himself.  Hammett gets up in top rock guitarists lists and he simply doesn't belong there. Why, on this website, Gabriel and Jon Anderson are frequently voted as the best singers in prog rock and mainly because they sang for two of the most popular bands (in prog).
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: March 28 2020 at 23:31
Well, I am again saying theyīre the most important band in the pop history. But I agree that no-one can say them best band in the pop history as a common truth, because whatīs the best band is just subjective thing and there are no objective criterion from which any artist can say commonly best. I know many people who thinks theyīre best but itīs their opinion, not right or wrong.

About Ringo as a drummer, heīs of course not Bill Bruford, but heīs really great anyway, has always had his own style that not every drummer can imitate. I think Ringoīs drumplaying is essential part of Beatles greatness.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2020 at 06:48
Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

...
In short, the Beatles were experimenters of new instruments, new arrangements, new sound effects in the studio but on a compositional level they were not innovative, indeed they were retro, they were at the rearguard, in fact they were always attached to the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes verse-chorus. When they went beyond this format, they wrote absolute masterpieces (A Day in The Life, Abbey Road suite etc) but in general, their greatest value was to make commercial, palatable to all, every new musical cue coming in their era, being able to integrate it into the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes, which thus led to a level of compositional sophistication and exceptional arrangement. 
...
Hi,

And I would attribute this to George Martin a lot more than I would to the Beatles themselves. However, all 4 of them were not "dummies" and they learned quickly and moved forward, which made them better musicians, and more interested in what they did with their music ... which of course, disappeared totally when they all went solo ... which leaves one person standing ... George Martin.

See the special on Amazon about GM ... it's free and it has some great things ... and there are some fun moments ... kids in a candy store with thousands of knobs ... what kid wouldn't have any fun with that?

(... only prog'rs of course!!! Wink)




Edited by moshkito - March 29 2020 at 06:48
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14110 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2020 at 07:34
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

  What I've been saying in this thread is that everything is overrated and underrated (meaning given too much credit or too little credit) by someone.

This implies that there's a correct objective rating to which you could compare people's different ratings. I doubt that.
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5744 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2020 at 08:13
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

...
In short, the Beatles were experimenters of new instruments, new arrangements, new sound effects in the studio but on a compositional level they were not innovative, indeed they were retro, they were at the rearguard, in fact they were always attached to the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes verse-chorus. When they went beyond this format, they wrote absolute masterpieces (A Day in The Life, Abbey Road suite etc) but in general, their greatest value was to make commercial, palatable to all, every new musical cue coming in their era, being able to integrate it into the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes, which thus led to a level of compositional sophistication and exceptional arrangement. 
...
Hi,

And I would attribute this to George Martin a lot more than I would to the Beatles themselves. However, all 4 of them were not "dummies" and they learned quickly and moved forward, which made them better musicians, and more interested in what they did with their music ... which of course, disappeared totally when they all went solo ... which leaves one person standing ... George Martin.

See the special on Amazon about GM ... it's free and it has some great things ... and there are some fun moments ... kids in a candy store with thousands of knobs ... what kid wouldn't have any fun with that?

(... only prog'rs of course!!! Wink)



Yes, George Martin was very important for the sound and the arrangements of Beatles' songs, especially for John Lennon.

In fact, Paul McCartney was able to do the arrangements of his songs on his own, instead Lennon said to Martin how he wanted the arrangemant of his songs and Martin did them.
"Happiness is real only when shared"
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExittheLemming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2020 at 08:55
Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:


Moreover, I think until 1966 the Beatles have published only 2-3 minutes pop-songs. They have enriched the pop songs with unreleased arrangements and studio effects, perfecting the format of the pop song verse-chorus (Rubber Soul and Revolver). Sgt Pepper is not a prog album, nor is it a concept album, it's simply an album where the Beatles created an introduction that is then reprised. Then, they have expanded some songs. Sgt Pepper is not even a real rock album, in fact there is very little rock music, there is Indian music, swing music, symphonic pop, melodic pop, music hall, pop mixed with avant-garde and finally even some rock songs. The Beatles have expanded their arrangements so much that they have become popular music musicians of all kinds. The Beatles (the White Album) again mixed songs of all musical genres, then the Beatles returned to rock in 1969 with Let It Be and Abbey Road. But in the meantime, between 1967 and 1969 rock music changed completely (Hendrix, Doors, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Family, King Crimson). 

The 2-3 minute pop song, which remained until the end the distinctly prevalent format of the Beatles, with a few exceptions, had been surpassed by all the real rock bands like the ones I mentioned above. With Abbey Road the Beatles manage to produce real rock in step with the times, as they had done in part with the White Album and with some Sgt Pepper songs. In addition, they build a mini suite on the second side, one of the first in the history of rock. The Beatles' contribution to the prog, in my opinion, as far as the arrangements is concerned is seen in Revolver, Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour, but as for the dilation of the format of the song, which is much more important, you see in Abbey Road. 

In short, the Beatles were experimenters of new instruments, new arrangements, new sound effects in the studio but on a compositional level they were not innovative, indeed they were retro, they were at the rearguard, in fact they were always attached to the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes verse-chorus. When they went beyond this format, they wrote absolute masterpieces (A Day in The Life, Abbey Road suite etc) but in general, their greatest value was to make commercial, palatable to all, every new musical cue coming in their era, being able to integrate it into the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes, which thus led to a level of compositional sophistication and exceptional arrangement. 

There are two types of great artists: those that bring a genre to perfection, and those that create a new genre, transversal, out of all rules, personal. The latter are the really innovative artists. The Beatles belong to the first category, but sometimes they have churned out in the second category, with few examples but extraordinary.


You make it sound as though all truly original art can somehow be created in a vacuum uncontaminated by the past. Surely all great art references the past albeit sometimes very obliquely? For a genre to be said to exist, it has to exhibit some 'socially agreed upon conventions' that have accumulated over time which kinda makes creating a shiny brand new one a non-sequiter The Beatles turned many popular music conventions completely on their head during their recording career but their not having invented a genre in the process does not diminish their achievements. The idea that verse and chorus structures are incapable of yielding innovative and groundbreaking music just seems like a very lazy association of ideas to me.


Edited by ExittheLemming - March 31 2020 at 02:26
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: March 29 2020 at 11:06
Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

Moreover, I think until 1966 the Beatles have published only 2-3 minutes pop-songs. They have enriched the pop songs with unreleased arrangements and studio effects, perfecting the format of the pop song verse-chorus (Rubber Soul and Revolver). Sgt Pepper is not a prog album, nor is it a concept album, it's simply an album where the Beatles created an introduction that is then reprised. Then, they have expanded some songs. Sgt Pepper is not even a real rock album, in fact there is very little rock music, there is Indian music, swing music, symphonic pop, melodic pop, music hall, pop mixed with avant-garde and finally even some rock songs. The Beatles have expanded their arrangements so much that they have become popular music musicians of all kinds. The Beatles (the White Album) again mixed songs of all musical genres, then the Beatles returned to rock in 1969 with Let It Be and Abbey Road. But in the meantime, between 1967 and 1969 rock music changed completely (Hendrix, Doors, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Family, King Crimson). 
Said this before, but have to say again. Sgt IS concept album, itīs really not a typical concept albums where is story with begin and ending. But there are even two themes going through all of the song, first is childhood (really much Johnīs & Paulīs childhood), the second is ordinary day in British live. Even Within You Without You fits into these themes, with the British history in India that had brought Indian culture influences to Brit much earlier than hippies become interested in India. Sgt may not be prog album if comparing it for example KC court, but really it influenced a lot to prog, not the least with itīs cover art.
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5744 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2020 at 13:48
Originally posted by Mortte Mortte wrote:

Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

Moreover, I think until 1966 the Beatles have published only 2-3 minutes pop-songs. They have enriched the pop songs with unreleased arrangements and studio effects, perfecting the format of the pop song verse-chorus (Rubber Soul and Revolver). Sgt Pepper is not a prog album, nor is it a concept album, it's simply an album where the Beatles created an introduction that is then reprised. Then, they have expanded some songs. Sgt Pepper is not even a real rock album, in fact there is very little rock music, there is Indian music, swing music, symphonic pop, melodic pop, music hall, pop mixed with avant-garde and finally even some rock songs. The Beatles have expanded their arrangements so much that they have become popular music musicians of all kinds. The Beatles (the White Album) again mixed songs of all musical genres, then the Beatles returned to rock in 1969 with Let It Be and Abbey Road. But in the meantime, between 1967 and 1969 rock music changed completely (Hendrix, Doors, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Family, King Crimson). 
Said this before, but have to say again. Sgt IS concept album, itīs really not a typical concept albums where is story with begin and ending. But there are even two themes going through all of the song, first is childhood (really much Johnīs & Paulīs childhood), the second is ordinary day in British live. Even Within You Without You fits into these themes, with the British history in India that had brought Indian culture influences to Brit much earlier than hippies become interested in India. Sgt may not be prog album if comparing it for example KC court, but really it influenced a lot to prog, not the least with itīs cover art.

I cant consider Sgt Pepper a concept album: The idea of ​​the album was that the Beatles did a show like Sg, and in fact the first song, RR is sung under the name of Billy Shears, but then starting from LSD sgt pepper puts together the songs that the Beatles had to them disposition, without any idea that could connect them. The Beatles themselves recognized it.
"Happiness is real only when shared"
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5744 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2020 at 18:22
PS I am a fan of the Beatles!

In my personal ranking

Sgt Pepper
White Album
Abbey Road

are great masterpiece, five stars.

And even Magical Mystery Tour is (small) masterpiece
"Happiness is real only when shared"
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2020 at 23:12
Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I don't think many would dispute, any more than I would, that The Beatles were hugely influential and had a tremendous impact on music, but in terms of origination of musical ideas and true innovation, I think they're overrated. I don't doubt their importance at all, and I like this statement "It was the concept of creativity for the masses that makes them so important." What I do suspect is that they were being given exposure to a lot of underground music that was more innovative (asnd more musically astute associates such as George Martin helped to elevate the music).  I listen to the Beatles albums, and I can think of many more, that I would think, were more musically creative/ inventive before them. They popularised such ideas, I would say, but I doubt that they were as originative as quite a few claim.

Some claim that Sgt. Peppers was the first Prog album, but I hear others from the same time and earlier that seem like much more progressive rock.  It was an important album to Prog, I won't deny that.  I've seen claims made that tthat The Beatles originated Psychadelic Rock and Raga Rock, which is not true.  Musicians/ composers borrow ideas for music. Music is not born in a vacuum, other than the Hoover Symphony was born in a vacuum cleaner, and they adapt, that's progress, but I think that those who influenced The Beatles are not getting enough credit.

I totally agree.

Moreover, I think until 1966 the Beatles have published only 2-3 minutes pop-songs. They have enriched the pop songs with unreleased arrangements and studio effects, perfecting the format of the pop song verse-chorus (Rubber Soul and Revolver). Sgt Pepper is not a prog album, nor is it a concept album, it's simply an album where the Beatles created an introduction that is then reprised. Then, they have expanded some songs. Sgt Pepper is not even a real rock album, in fact there is very little rock music, there is Indian music, swing music, symphonic pop, melodic pop, music hall, pop mixed with avant-garde and finally even some rock songs. The Beatles have expanded their arrangements so much that they have become popular music musicians of all kinds. The Beatles (the White Album) again mixed songs of all musical genres, then the Beatles returned to rock in 1969 with Let It Be and Abbey Road. But in the meantime, between 1967 and 1969 rock music changed completely (Hendrix, Doors, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Family, King Crimson). 

The 2-3 minute pop song, which remained until the end the distinctly prevalent format of the Beatles, with a few exceptions, had been surpassed by all the real rock bands like the ones I mentioned above. With Abbey Road the Beatles manage to produce real rock in step with the times, as they had done in part with the White Album and with some Sgt Pepper songs. In addition, they build a mini suite on the second side, one of the first in the history of rock. The Beatles' contribution to the prog, in my opinion, as far as the arrangements is concerned is seen in Revolver, Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour, but as for the dilation of the format of the song, which is much more important, you see in Abbey Road. 

In short, the Beatles were experimenters of new instruments, new arrangements, new sound effects in the studio but on a compositional level they were not innovative, indeed they were retro, they were at the rearguard, in fact they were always attached to the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes verse-chorus. When they went beyond this format, they wrote absolute masterpieces (A Day in The Life, Abbey Road suite etc) but in general, their greatest value was to make commercial, palatable to all, every new musical cue coming in their era, being able to integrate it into the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes, which thus led to a level of compositional sophistication and exceptional arrangement. 

There are two types of great artists: those that bring a genre to perfection, and those that create a new genre, transversal, out of all rules, personal. The latter are the really innovative artists. The Beatles belong to the first category, but sometimes they have churned out in the second category, with few examples but extraordinary.

I don't completely agree with the notion that the 2-3 minute format songs weren't great (or overrated) or offered nothing innovative.  No songs like Eleanor Rigby had been done by a popular band at that time. How long is Penny Lane?  3 min.  Even LSD is just 3.5 min.  Because is 3 min.  Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields, all eminently radio chartable length.  Other than Day In The Life and I Want You, not many of their experimental songs were ever long.   In that sense, I don't agree that their main achievement was pushing pop/rock to perfection because they instead broke stereotypes about pop/rock with every album from Rubber Soul up.  They expanded the boundaries of pop/rock beyond belief and also far beyond any chart topping act since then, be it ABBA, Carpenters, Michael Jackson (and thereafter isn't even worth writing about as pop became completely formulaic and studio controlled).  If anything, after the break up of Beatles, popular music quickly settled into the dichotomy of long format but interesting rock on the one side and safe and formulaic pop music ready for the radio on the other.  The only time in pop history that the twain were brought together was during the reign of the Beatles.  It is easy to see why some on a prog rock board - not talking about you as you say you are a fan - would sneer or disdain this achievement but it was an enormously important chapter in popular music and its influence is almost impossible to gauge.


Edited by rogerthat - March 29 2020 at 23:14
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 30 2020 at 06:18
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

...
In that sense, I don't agree that their main achievement was pushing pop/rock to perfection because they instead broke stereotypes about pop/rock with every album from Rubber Soul up.  They expanded the boundaries of pop/rock beyond belief and also far beyond any chart topping act since then, be it ABBA, Carpenters, Michael Jackson (and thereafter isn't even worth writing about as pop became completely formulaic and studio controlled).
...

Hi,

IF they did push the boundaries, it was that compared to the top ten stuff, their material was a bit more serious and on "topic" instead of the usual bubble gum mentality of a lot of the top ten material, which has been like that for a long time, and the movie/recording studios loved it ... it made them money! (Remember that almost all recording studios were owned by film companies at that time in America ... an important consideration when it comes to making sure their material gets used and seen and sold.)

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

...
If anything, after the break up of Beatles, popular music quickly settled into the dichotomy of long format but interesting rock on the one side and safe and formulaic pop music ready for the radio on the other. 
...

I think this is easier to discuss and formulate an opinion if we take the advent of FM radio in America ... the "heavier" and "longer" material by the Beatles was PERFECT for the new FM dial, which the AM pop craft music deliverer would never touch, until much later and then only as a "classic". No AM station is not going to play "Hey Jude" once a day ... which they helped sell better than FM radio!

This was the case in Wisconsin and California ... with one very important consideration, which might make a difference and helps define FM radio in many ways ... in Madison their music was considered serious, informative, innovative and intelligent ... in California, no one gave a sheep dip and it was all about the clothes, the hair, the haircut, and the colors ... and the "cool" content ... their meaning was ... who cares, it's fun ... very similar to a lot of the things going on in PA.

FM was way less formulaic until 1977 or 1978 when it started getting bought out by corporate folks, who immediately changed some of the formats to get rid of the stuff that was more offensive ... and they got deep fried (but had the corporate accounts behind them - Coke, Pepsi, Army, Navy) ... which meant they did not get a lot of credit for the punk stuff which had been huge in LA since at least 1970 ... see Iggy and the Stooges special by Jim Jarmusch and specially Iggy's discussion of their show at the Whiskey in 1972. Eat your heart out Sex Pimples?

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

...
The only time in pop history that the twain were brought together was during the reign of the Beatles.  It is easy to see why some on a prog rock board - not talking about you as you say you are a fan - would sneer or disdain this achievement but it was an enormously important chapter in popular music and its influence is almost impossible to gauge.

I think for us to do this better, and properly, we would have to take into consideration the role and the radio stations ... for example ... I like to make a couple of jokes here ... NY and California alone sold half the Beatles albums in America! ... and of course, in Nashville, those folks made fun of the Beatles and trashed them on the air senselessly ... a losing battle for them which pretty much showed how far behind the times they were, and many of the "new wave" of country artists had a really hard time with those folks until way later.

As for cultural "influence" ... it depends how we look at it ... in those days (in Madison), a lot of us RESPECTED the Beatles for having done something serious, artistic and inspirational ... I'm not sure I would say the same for the Rolling Stones ... however, when we got to California (late 1971) it was just a FAD and no one gave a heck about nothing ... just get stoned to be cool! And there was no interest or desire to accept and understand the valuable elements of the Beatles ... and then that joke about Nashville, is a nice wake up call ... and I can not tell you about any other area ... I'm not comfortable even discussing NY, but an area that big, could easily sell half a million in one day if all the stores carried it, AND that would make it automatically number one in America.

In Europe this is different, because the scene was very much all over, and very clear in France, and in Germany (with a different name!!!), and even Italy, but the appreciation for it, is likely to have helped the music ... even Aphrodite's Child had at one time said that the Beatles were their inspiration, however, this was different ... in that the Beatles probably were the first rock band to really set a foot print in that area ... which woke up the kids to play electric instruments so to speak. Elvis, for example, was too American compared to the equivalent of a Zorba, or any other relative character in the other countries in Europe.

I suppose that there are way too many different cultures that looked at things differently ... for example I can tell you that both the Beatles and Rolling Stones, doubled or tripled the effectiveness of pop music in Brazil ... and created a huge industry of music from 1964 on ... but you did not see the whole dress and haircut thing as much ... since Brazil already had its own haircut and dress conventions that were way out there! Something like that ... but I do not know the status or development of radio in Brazil at a time when they were in a dictatorship and a lot of the new music became another voice against the political systems. Maybe not on the air, but the sales were impossible to ignore!

I hope I didn't make a mess of things ... !!! It's the best I could remember and put together!


Edited by moshkito - March 30 2020 at 06:48
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
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: 20503 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 30 2020 at 06:26
Originally posted by Mortte Mortte wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Revolver? Decent? Look at all the forgettable pop that was around in 1966! LOL

That's my opinion.

Honestly, even if there were no better albums, this doesn't make an album good, just a poor year for music.

But there were better albums for me, like Freak Out (Zappa), Roger The Engineer (Yardbirds), Pet Sounds (Beach Boys) and the underrated Psychedelic Lollipop (Blues Magoos).

But again, just my opinion.


I think 1966 was quite good year in music (not as great as 1967-1974, but close):
the Beatles: Revolver
Beach Boys: Pet Sounds
the Ventures: Where the Action Is
the Rolling Stones: Aftermath
Small Faces: s/t
the Ventures: Go With the Ventures
Bob Dylan: Blonde On Blonde
Yardbirds: s/t
John Mayal With Eric Clapton: Bluesbrakers
Donovan: Sunshine Supermen
the Byrds: Fifth Dimension
the Ventures: Wild Things!
Simon & Garfunkel: Parsley, Sage, Rosemary & Thyme
13th Floor Elevators: the Psychedelic Sounds Of...
the Kinks: Face To Face
Tim Buckley: s/t
Love: Da Capo
the Blues Project: Projections
Buffalo Springfield: s/t
Skip James: Today!
Cream: Fresh Cream
the Who: Quick One
Frank Zappa: Freak Out

I think there are also many others, but not yet listened them (or remember them).
Nice list but more than half were not popular or known at all. In fact, you might have listed all of the best artists' albums of '66.LOL  Pet Sounds was a commercial disappointment, The Elevators were not known outside of Texas and the California Bay Area, and Mayal And The Bluesbrakers were not even known in the US until Cream became popular and people started to back track. Remember that US radio at the time was the AM format with Frank Sinatra thrown in with artists like the Monkees, Petula Clark, The Association and Tom Jones. Please don't make me compile a counter list as my stomach couldn't take it.

Edited by SteveG - March 30 2020 at 06:30
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 30 2020 at 06:46
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

...
(trimmed to keep it simpler and short)(not to take away from all the other posts)

I think 1966 was quite good year in music
the Beatles: Revolver
Beach Boys: Pet Sounds
the Rolling Stones: Aftermath
Small Faces: s/t
Bob Dylan: Blonde On Blonde
Yardbirds: s/t
Donovan: Sunshine Supermen
the Byrds: Fifth Dimension
Simon & Garfunkel: Parsley, Sage, Rosemary & Thyme
Buffalo Springfield: s/t
Cream: Fresh Cream
the Who: Quick One
...
Pet Sounds was a commercial disappointment
...
Mayall and The Bluesbrakers were not even known in the US 
...
AM Radio /// Monkees, Petula Clark, The Association and Tom Jones. 
...
 

Hi,

The AM station in Madison that was "hip" trashed Pet Sounds, and immediately played a previous hit!

Mayall was known by the folks that "knew" music ... for example, by 1969 in Madison, I knew Fairport Convention, John Renbourn, Pentangle, Chieftains, Incredible String Band and other things that were not as well known ... most folks that "knew" music would have a Mayall record or two. The first house we stayed in for a month (Danny and Mary's) in Oct 1965 had all these albums as well as things like Paul Butterfield, Bob Dylan (BonB) and other things ... all of which were only a good fit on the FM radio, not the AM hit parade!

The whole thing gets blurred really bad when FM radio comes alive in America, which was in STEREO compared to AM Radio and it made a lot of the music sound better, thus a SGT P or MMT, these bigger albums were perfect fits, which the Monkees were a better fit for the AM Radio dial. So the stage/area between the late 60's and early 70's, a lot of the changes are the "new" exposure areas and centers and for most that meant the big cities, because they got it way before the small towns ever did ... like 5 to 10 years later!

REMEMBER THAT!

The only problem with the list is that it cross over to AM and then back to FM ... which makes it tougher to discuss altogether.



Edited by moshkito - March 30 2020 at 06:53
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
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: 20503 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 30 2020 at 06:50
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

...
(trimmed to keep it simpler and short)(not to take away from all the other posts)

I think 1966 was quite good year in music
the Beatles: Revolver
Beach Boys: Pet Sounds
the Rolling Stones: Aftermath
Small Faces: s/t
Bob Dylan: Blonde On Blonde
Yardbirds: s/t
Donovan: Sunshine Supermen
the Byrds: Fifth Dimension
Simon & Garfunkel: Parsley, Sage, Rosemary & Thyme
Buffalo Springfield: s/t
Cream: Fresh Cream
the Who: Quick One
...
Pet Sounds was a commercial disappointment
...
Mayall and The Bluesbrakers were not even known in the US 
...
AM Radio /// Monkees, Petula Clark, The Association and Tom Jones. 
...
 

Hi,

The AM station in Madison that was "hip" trashed Pet Sounds, and immediately played a previous hit!

Mayall was known by the folks that "knew" music ... for example, by 1969 in Madison, I knew Fairport Convention, John Renbourn, Pentangle, Chieftains, Incredible String Band and other things that were not as well known ... most folks that "knew" music would have a Mayall record or two. The first house we stayed in for a month (Danny and Mary's) had all these albums as well as things like Paul Butterfield and other things ... all of which were only a good fit on the FM radio, not the AM hit parade!

The whole thing gets blurred really bad when FM radio comes alive in America, which was in STEREO compared to AM Radio and it made a lot of the music sound better, thus a SGT P or MMT, these bigger albums were perfect fits, which the Monkees were a better fit for the AM Radio dial. So the stage/area between the late 60's and early 70's, a lot of the changes are the "new" exposure areas and centers and for most that meant the big cities, because they got it way before the small towns ever did ... like 5 to 10 years later!

REMEMBER THAT!

The only problem with the list is that it cross over to AM and then back to FM ... which makes it tougher to discuss altogether.

Mosh, I'm talking about what music was known to the general public. I was listening to Davy Graham at the time as well as John Renbourn and Bert Jansch before they joined  Pentangle! REMEMBER THAT!

Edited by SteveG - March 30 2020 at 06:53
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 30 2020 at 07:00
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

...
Mosh, I'm talking about what music was known to the general public. I was listening to Davy Graham at the time as well as John Renbourn and Bert Jansch before they joined  Pentangle! REMEMBER THAT!
Hi,

Steve ... this is not a competition about who knew/heard what ... I merely wrote what I had seen at that time and place ... and even with my limited English at the time, I remembered that much, but lesser known albums and materials would be a tough call for me ... but heck ... I heard Woody Guthrie ... and then laughed at Arlo's thing!

Madison, WI and then Southern California are not exactly the whole story as it seems like it is seen ... there is a lot more that I do not know enough of ... but I don't even know how some states in America would even handle some of that stuff the NY and Cal played! Even Ohio and Illinois, specially when they donned live guns on people! 


Edited by moshkito - March 30 2020 at 07:00
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 20212223>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.262 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.