Ian Anderson and the Beatles
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=116179
Printed Date: May 10 2024 at 02:54
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Ian Anderson and the Beatles
Posted By: Icarium
Subject: Ian Anderson and the Beatles
Date Posted: August 21 2018 at 23:51
|
During the interview with Rick Wakeman, Ian Anderson revield a shocking revelation. That he was not or never was a very much fan of the Beatles. I found that to both be "like what!" But also a respectful thing to say. To hear one whom were living in Britain whom were part of the same cultural boom of rock of 60s and 70s but whom utters a dislike/distance towards the Beatlemania. He stated he had other interest, more into the whole blues thing. He was more of a Rolling Stones follower. I find such to be refreashing. Are there other children/musicians o 60s/70s whom felt alienated by the Beatles and the mania it caused. -------------  
|
Replies:
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: August 21 2018 at 23:57
|
One final question that we always ask: what is your favourite Beatles album? Wow, you got me there because I was never really a Beatles fan. I suppose it would be Sgt Peppers, because of the landmark it represented in pop music and rather like in the same year, Pink Floyds The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. They were the life-changing musical moments for a generation and although I wasnt a Beatles fan, I guess I learnt something from Sgt. Peppers in terms of variety, of the rather surreal nature of it, that was quite laudable. George Martin was a friend of mine (I didnt know the Beatles at all) and his role in all of that is very important. I like to think ofSgt. Peppers as the album that could not have been made with another producer, it had to be George. He was Beatles no.5, he was actually probably Beatles no.3! He was a very special guy and helped to bring together those very opposite personalities and musical backgrounds. http://indeflagration.fr/in-english/ian-anderson-jethro-tull-interview/ -------------
|
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 02:17
|
This doesnīt suprise me at all. In the sixties there were lines between Beatles & Stones-fans, although of course there were people, specially in the end of sixties that loved both. When I was about 4-5 years old, I listened Beatles red double much and really liked it. But when I heard Stones first time, it really hit me. There was a period in my life, when I respected only after Help Beatles-albums, but in the nineties I bought also their early albums and have liked them too since then. But still if somebody asks Stones or Beatles itīs Stones for me. Also I think George was really important to them already in the beginning. Revolver is my favourite from them.
|
Posted By: Junges
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 02:21
|
"Revield a revelation".. I don't understand why someone would be surprised about that. If you understand the fact that people have different tastes, interests and they like different things, what is there to be surprised about? It is not like you are obligated to like something just because the majority likes it. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 02:54
|
I'm not surprised, either... I was more of a Stones fan (they were "rockier") for three decades myself, though I must say that it's about equal now. Fave Beatles album: Abbey Road by a wide margin >> Second would be Let It Be or Sgt Pepper or Revolver Fave Stones album: Let It Bleed Second fave: Some Girls or Ya-Ya's Out.
|
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 03:16
|
I have always preferred the Beatles over the Stones, more than a bit. Favourite Beatles albums: Revolver > Sgt. Pepper's > The Beatles = Abbey Road The only Stones album I have heard in its entirety was Their Satanic Majesties Request, which is pretty good but behind these four Beatles albums. ------------- 
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 03:59
| I love the Stones but they were the followers, not the trend setters. A Hard Day's Night, Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, MMT, White Album and Abbey Road are all tied, to me, as favorite Beatles' albums. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 05:18
| Not a massive surprise as early Tull was more blues-based and the Stones were a blues band. Surprisingly not everyone likes the Beatles. |
Posted By: AZF
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 07:53
And as a Beatles fan this now explains why I can only listen to some and not complete pieces by Jethro Tull! 
|
Posted By: Argo2112
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 08:15
|
I heard a Zappa interview where he was asked about the Beatles & he said they were "OK"( implying they were not great in his tone) Frank said he was much more of a Stones fan. (Ironic side note , Eleanor Rigby just popped up on my play list as I was typing this!) |
Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 08:59
Ditto. :-) That
interview is rather entertaining, though maybe in the wrong way. Ian
comes across as a complete bore, self centered and pompeous, and he
talks and talks and talks... while Rick sinks deeper and deeper into his
armchair and seems to have a problem staying awake. :-D It's
such a complete opposite to the other two available interviews, the
ones with the two charming and humourus gentlemen, Jon Lord and Brian
May. |
AZF wrote:Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 10:53
My case also, though I would put the White Album instead of revolver, which I also love. Not much into the Stones, and I also only have Their Satanic Majesties Request. I like some of their songs, but not entire albums.
|
Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 11:17
I love the Beatles & the Stones, though I love all the Beatles albums where the Stones didn't really get interesting to me until Aftermath in '66. As far as Ian Anderson liking the Stones much better, it makes perfect sense as he was a blues guy. I always felt like the Beatles were cooler, but the Stones were badder  ------------- https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987 |
Posted By: kenethlevine
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 12:53
|
was never a big fan of either but at least the Stones had stones
I always find it refreshing when I meet someone who is meh towards the Beatles. They just never spoke to me much other than when I was 4 and I heard "I wanna hold your hand"
|
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 13:01
|
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 ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 13:36
-------------
|
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: August 22 2018 at 15:00
| If you take into consideration the early blues based aspect of the early Jethro Tull albums(especially the first one)that makes sense. The Rolling Stones were much more into the blues than the Beatles. |
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 06:53
|
Posted By: Jeffro
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 08:08
|
I think it's easy (but of course erroneous) to assume that 'everyone' loved the Beatles because they were such a phenomenon. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 09:48
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: questionsneverknown
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 11:22
|
To echo what others have already said, this isn't a surprise to me at all. My sisters were 'of age' in the 1960s, and were utter Stones fans, and indifferent at best to The Beatles. For them, part of that might have been due them being able to see the Stones a number of times at the Ricky-Tick in Windsor. In that period, it really was a question of which are you: a Stones fan or a Beatles fan? In our era of everything being available and somewhat equal, this seems bizarre. However, even as a teen in the 1980s, I remember being hassled constantly about liking punk and prog. Punk friends made fun of my 'hippy' records and my hippy friends made fun of my punk records. Which side are you on?! For what it's worth, one of my sisters said it wasn't until the 1980s or even later that she realised that the Beatles were a good band, and not just the vapid teenyboppers she assumed at the time. ------------- The damage that we do is just so powerfully strong we call it love The damage that we do just goes on and on and on but not long enough. --Robyn Hitchcock |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 11:30
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. ;) ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 11:35
|
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. ------------- "It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 11:37
|
Regarding Anderson...that doesn't surprise me either .....the first 3 Tull Lp's were gritty and rocked out at times with plenty of blues influence. I watched that interview when it came out....sadly I can't even recall that.....it's hell to get old. ;) ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 11:41
That might be true but Townsend also said he never really liked Led Zep either......really? Zep certainly wasn't laughable. Seems to me Pete had some ego problems that he couldn't resolve even with his dabbling in eastern religions. ;) btw...I'm a Who fan. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Squonk19
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 14:50
Any mention of old Rory gets my respect! Back on the subject - I always preferred The Beatles over the Stones when I was younger, but I now appreciate both in different ways. Still have a problem with old Rubber Lips prancing around a stage to this day - but that says more about me, I suppose! ------------- Living in their pools, they soon forget about the sea. |
Posted By: YESESIS
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 15:56
|
The Beatles are definitely one of my favorite bands. Abbey Road is my favorite album by them, all time classic without question. Never been a huge Tull fan.
|
Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 18:20
Right, I forgot about that one. He's also a lovely guy to listen to.
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 20:54
|
Hi, I thought that his comment on "everything that can be done in rock music has been done" (might be paraphrased some!), is probably a lot more important than the comment about the Beatles and the Stones. I went from Portugal and Brazil and then to America in 1965, and both of those were great for me, and we had the LP's, but when I got here and listened to Bob Dylan, Paul Butterfield, Peter Paul and Mary, Simon and Garfunkel, the taste for the two big ones went down a lot. I got it back in the White Album and Abbey Road, but I was also missing the fine Brazilian folk/jazz scene at the time. By 1969, I already had been into Hendrix, Janis, Jim M, Procol Harum, Moody Blues ... and many others, at which time/place the importance of the Beatles and Stones went to the toilet ... they were no longer the most important material out there and there were many folks that spoke out a lot better for many of us and what we were all about in Madison, WI. For me the Beatles died when they showed their ugly moments and faces in one of the most valuable films EVER done ... LET IT BE ... where the title song, even asks you to forget it and let it die, so to speak. I love the film, and its importance as a document, but most of all because it demystified the Beatles, which was needed and important. Ian, lived though all that, and I think that he got tired of the road, all the shows, and eventual break down in communication with various band members, which did not exactly hurt the band, but for me it was over after MINSTREL IN THE GALLERY, which the audience did not like, and immediately went back to play his first "hit". At that point, it is no surprise to me, if Ian does say something that appears cross with most rock music, but I think his criticisms, were mostly "asides" to the music business than they were about rock music ... since he still had a rock band at the time, and was still doing music with it. That part never went. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 22:49
|
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!!!!    -------------   
|
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: August 23 2018 at 22:56
|
There was a time during my earlier teens years when I disliked the Beatles. That changed by the time I was 19 and I have been a big fan ever since. It has only been in the last few years that I have gotten into the Stones. I also used to disparage the Blues a lot but now I totally dig it and it is a significant part of my overall music collection. Maybe it was an appreciation of the Blues that led to an appreciation for the Stones. Every band and artist can be laughed at one way or another, at one time or another. And yeah, Rory Gallagher really rocks. The Blues turns out to be quite flexible, but then it has always been more about individual interpretation than technical skill (although that helps, too). ------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: August 24 2018 at 01:35
|
Always thought The Beatles were a product of their time. They were
accepted as being "white clean and neat" playing country music and had
nothing to do with "race" records, payola and what was the disappearance
of rock and roll. They were safe (culturally) for a world that had yet
to get the Pill, pot and porn in suitable payloads. The Stones
went older, blues - and heaven knows what would have happened had it
been them playing Shea Stadium instead; if they had been first to
America rather than the Beatles. As it was they were booed for playing
blues but still ploughed on. They both
made pretty good albums from '67 onward (although the White Album for me
was maybe 4 tracks and a shed load of B sides). Beggar's Banquet had a
cohesion and consistency (being largely acoustic all the way) and only
having Jack Flash versus Hey Jude. And Let It Bleed is stunning where
let It Be can't even keep it's best song (Don't Bring me Down) on every
edition. Thankfully Abbey Road was their final attempt and a successful
one at making a rock album in more modern terms. The
Beatles had lost direction. They needed their mentors Epstein to
control their business and Martin to control the audio production. Mick
and Keith might be a couple of hard evil beggars but they were mentally a
lot stronger and drove their band well. Still, they both fell foul of
Allen Klein, someone really nasty in a world of nasty people. The
Stones got themselves superstar guitarist Mick Taylor who was their
Beck / Clapton / Page and somehow muddled their way into making a series
of great albums a that late 60s early 70s crucial time in rock. The Stones returned to playing - technology gave rock bands the PA system. The
Beatles were old school pop and probably did themselves a favour by not
appearing along with the nascent heavy and prog scenes. The Stones
could go off track live and did in later years but they had enough great
songs (their 60s forte) and great albums (late 60s 70s forte) and ...
still tour... |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 24 2018 at 04:36
|
^ I think that labeling the fabs as old school pop does them a disservice as the Beatles were always changing and evolving. Darker themed albums like White Album and Let it Be certainly don't fit that description and Abbey Road runs the spectrum from pop to heavy to prog. ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Jeffro
Date Posted: August 24 2018 at 04:44
Exactly. You can't easily categorize the Beatles.
|
Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: August 24 2018 at 10:01
I've found most people that minimize the Beatles impact weren't there to experience it first hand. Even if you hated the Beatles, you couldn't deny their influence if you lived through the 60's. Sure, they were hardly the only innovative 60's band, but they literally changed the world kicking down too many doors to count  ------------- https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987 |
Posted By: Fischman
Date Posted: August 24 2018 at 12:12
|
This only confirms what Ive always suspected; that Ian Anderson is a man of great taste and
integrity. |
Posted By: dr prog
Date Posted: August 24 2018 at 13:14
|
Beatles werent that good and Stones were crap ------------- All I like is prog related bands beginning late 60's/early 70's. Their music from 1968 - 83 has the composition and sound which will never be beaten. Perfect blend of jazz, classical, folk and rock. |
Posted By: Tero1
Date Posted: August 24 2018 at 19:20
|
Well I can see how the genres were worlds apart. The Stones had some blues type of songs, but The Beatles by 1970 was pretty much pop, whereas the first Tull album was blues jazz and all kinds of things rolled in. Tull was also more connected to some English folky stuff. I think, though, Anderson and McCartney were both quite similar in approach to music, intuitive. The Beatles were not really much in the progressive era, and McCartney went exactly the opposite direction in his solo career. None of this prevents me from liking Thick as A Brick and Ram...well, not equally, but both are favorites. Ram follows the simple times of the Beatles.
|
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: August 24 2018 at 20:54
| 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. |
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: August 24 2018 at 23:29
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: August 25 2018 at 03:17
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.
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)
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! |
Posted By: SteveG
Date 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.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: August 25 2018 at 09:50
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 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. ------------- https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987 |
Posted By: TiddK
Date 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.)
|
Posted By: Tero1
Date 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. |
Posted By: silverpot
Date 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.
|
Posted By: richardh
Date 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!) |
Posted By: Fischman
Date 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. |
Posted By: Mortte
Date 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 didnīt hear anything of Sgt within those months they recorded Days? Also, Days has really much Beatles style pop in itīs songs, although itīs concept album. There just arenīt great rock/pop band from the sixties that wasnīt at least unconsciusly influenced By Beatles.
|
Posted By: Fischman
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 03:35
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. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 04:00
|
Posted By: Fischman
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 07:38
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. |
Posted By: TiddK
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 09:31
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.
|
Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date 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 ) 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?------------- https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987 |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 10:04
|
Posted By: TiddK
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 10:25
Miles Davies? John Coltrane? Dave Brubeck? Ike Turner? Hank Marvin? Chuck Berry? Sister Rosetta Tharpe? Joe Meek? Ray Charles?
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 10:33
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Fischman
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 11:58
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.
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 13:05
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.
|
Posted By: Fischman
Date 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.
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 13:25
|
Posted By: Fischman
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 13:31
Which still doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened anyway. It was coming no matter what. Had they not been there, someone else would have been the catalyst and the standard bearer. And the bottom line is the creative minds would have created. That's what creative minds do. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 13:37
| I'm tired of this would of, could of and should of. Historically, the Beatles are responsible. No one else and that's the bottom line. All else is conjecture. |
Posted By: Fischman
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 13:39
The were definitely a big part. But responsible? Certainly not solely responsible. Exactly to what degree is indeed conjecture.
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 13:42
|
Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 13:59
|
I very much agree with Steve here and I think Fischman, that you're actually using the crucial word yourself; Beatlemania. Yep, that's what set many a ball in motion. There was no Who-mania or Dave Clake Five-mania. There was only Beatlemania, and that was huge. |
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 21:27
| About Days of Future Passed, it wasn't a full Orchestra collaboration... actually, as far as I remember the album, most of the band parts didn't have orchestra, and most of the orchestra parts didn't include the band. And DECCA didn't push for that album (though their idea wasn't all that riskless anyway)... they wanted New World Symphony performed by a rock band... I think they wanted a show for the stereo technology or something... The Moodies decided they wanted to do their own music instead, and so they recorded something completley different... the DECCA guys only found out until the presentation of the album. |
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: August 27 2018 at 22:07
|
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: August 28 2018 at 02:30
|
Have to say something about that picture Beatles was at first just nice band making innocent "boy meets girls"-songs. I think it just shows how those who are thinking that way really doesnīt know the history. Before the Beatles pop music was going into very non-rebellious direction (you know even Elvis was doing ballads, many rock stars like Eddie Cochran & Buddy Holly had died, Chuck Berry & Little Richard really werenīt on the top that time). Beatles was genius mix of acceptable & outrageous. They behavior was really cheeky, but same time very intelligent and that time many pop stars really didnīt behave that way. Although they have nice pop tunes like Love Me Do and Please Please Me, they also do some quite sexy songs like a cover version of Twist & Shout. Songs like Please Please Me, Thereīs a Place & From Me To You are little, but still genius pop masterpieces IMO. Yes, Stones & the Who made much dirtier music than the Beatles, but would they never have a record deal without the Beatles? You have to remember even George Martin had doubts about the Beatles and Decca said no to them. Also one thing that proglisteners really donīt want to approve is that I donīt believe prog would have become popular at all without Beatles. Beatles was to first to made a concept album that really become a standard in prog, also first to introduce such a cover (gatefold, also lyrics in it), you remember what kind of cover Days of Future has (no gatefold no lyrics). Also I believe when Yes put those very Beatles-style vocals in their prog, it really helped them to become popular (they also made Beatles cover in their first album).
|
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: August 28 2018 at 03:02
|
edit
This was crucial. The Beatles established the idea that there was a market (Brian Epstein's idea). I think the audition recording might still be on u tube somewhere so it (my conjecture) is both no surprise they were turned down - the recordings were square big jazzy pop and nothing like the country rock first album. And secondly had the Beatles been accepted on the strength of that first audition who knows how badly rock might have gone. The Decca decision was unsurprising and I was amazed the guy got through 40 mines of this. Revised, fixed... It was probably easier to accept the Stones as they were one of many bands playing an already established form of music. Also one thing that proglisteners really donīt want to approve is that I donīt believe prog would have become popular at all without Beatles. Beatles was to first to made a concept album that really become a standard in prog, also first to introduce such a cover (gatefold, also lyrics in it), you remember what kind of cover Days of Future has (no gatefold no lyrics). Also I believe when Yes put those very Beatles-style vocals in their prog, it really helped them to become popular (they also made Beatles cover in their first album). [/QUOTE] I think it would have been popular without the Beatles but - possible? The question of market was opened up and the impact of the Beatles as a social cultural phenomenon opened up a world of ambitious rock music. Prog rock had no teen idol quotient which gave the biz real headaches when they wanted to do their marketing. Curiously the industry still behaved like everything was a fad and tried to max out every cent on every band, controlling everything like the industry knows what's best when it was the bands, the musicians, that made the business. Actually I'm thinking of how Geffen and John Kalodner "guided" Asia instead of letting these guys do what they do best - probably the last music to have been part of the knock on effect of 1967 era rock. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 28 2018 at 04:05
|
Posted By: BarryGlibb
Date Posted: August 28 2018 at 04:39
|
Getting back to the original forum post i.e. Ian Anderson.... Beatles vs Stones. I find it odd that ANderson preferred The Rolling Stones compared to The Beatles. Tull to me were innovators/experimenters just like the Beatles; the Stones IMHO were a rock band who weren't that lateral in there music complexity to any great degree and only a few songs really gelled with me (Satisfaction, Paint It Black, Ruby Tuesday, Gimme Shelter, Jumping Jack Flash and a few others). Tull are/were very melodious in the vast majority of their songs; again similar to the Beatles in many ways. So The Beatles were my band as a kid growing up in the 60s and this progressed to a true devotion to Jethro Tull in 70s. Both of these bands, to me, went hand in hand. Stones and then Tull?......nah. BTW: Another first not mentioned in a previous post was The Beatles were apparently the first rock band to record feedback on a song...that being the intro bit to I Feel Fine (1964). |
Posted By: Jeffro
Date Posted: August 28 2018 at 04:58
I've never been a fan of the argument, "well, if they (whoever 'they' are) weren't around, someone else would have come along and done it anyway". I've seen it often used to demean and dismiss the impact of whatever entity the person using that argument wishes to dismiss. It's an irrelevant what if scenario and ultimately pointless because that's not what really happened. The Beatles were there. The impact was there. The influence was there. That's fact. Can we discuss and debate the extent of that influence? Yes, we can but we can't dismiss it. |
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: August 28 2018 at 05:12
|
Hereīs a sentence from Moody Blues wiki-sites from the making of Days Of Future Passed: The album drew inspiration in production and arrangement from the pioneering use of the classical instrumentation by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles" rel="nofollow -
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 28 2018 at 06:47
|
^Yes, as The.Crimson.King pointed out in his list of firsts, the Beatles were the first to use classical instruments in the song "Yesterday" and that is a direct link between the Beatles and Moody's that I always thought was coincidental, but so be it. As BarryGlibb pointed out, perhaps we've been off topic for too long and should return to it. As brilliant as I think Ian Anderson is, he is a bit of bugger (his words not mine) and probably just didn't like Ringo's nose. Or whatever! ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: August 28 2018 at 06:55
| ^Well, I quess there really were musicians also in the sixties that didnīt like the Beatles. But I believe even those couldnīt avoid the influences, so much Beatles was all over (at least the western) world! |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 28 2018 at 09:27
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: August 28 2018 at 17:11
Yes. It's rather like when Jimi Hendrix bassist Billy Cox said something to the effect, "There's guitarists that admit they were influenced by Hendrix and then there are liars." ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: August 28 2018 at 19:23
 ------------- https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987 |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: August 29 2018 at 08:32
|
Hi, I kinda think that the Beatles did for rock music, what the Jazz did for American music in the 50's and 60's. It brought it to the mainstream. The part that is missing, and probably should be mentioned, was how the Beatles, Kinks, Rolling Stones and others even GOT to the mainstream, which was Pirate Radio in that part of the world. Remember that even the Beatles, and Rolling Stones, are considered two of the worst BUSINESS DECISIONS ever made, even with folks at the BBC trashing it. All in all, they all helped usher in the new era of the arts, and an era that should be remembered as the most valuable and important in the 20th century for its incredible array of diversity and explosion of creativity and development of instruments. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: TiddK
Date Posted: August 29 2018 at 09:29
There probably wasn't even such a thing as 'rock music' before the mid-60s - The Beatles, along with the Stones, The Who, The Animals, The Kinks, etc helped to invent the medium out of a fusion of what had gone before. That was rock'n'roll (itself a fusion), R&B which emerged from blues, with elements of soul and jazz and - let us not forget - British "Music Hall". You mustn't underestimate the power of the pirates - before that, young people tuned religiously into the very limited pop output of the BBC including TV shows, the ITV shows, and perhaps most important, Radio Luxembourg in the evenings despite the awful signal. When pirates came along in the wake of Beatlemania kids bought transistor radios just to listen to the all-day pirates, and from there they went to record stores in their droves, listened again there, and bought what they liked. It was the limited availability of broadcast rock and pop which made it so valuable and powerful to us back then.
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 29 2018 at 11:15
|
The UK had pirates. The US had Ed Sullivan. The result was the same: Beatlemania! ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 29 2018 at 11:21
|
I know I said that I'd stick to the topic, but was UK pirate radio a reaction to the Beatles or was the Beatles a result of UK pirate radio? The first UK pirate Radio Caroline first broadcast sometime in 1964.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: August 29 2018 at 14:37
Don't forget the self proclaimed "5th Beatle", Murray the K ------------- https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987 |
Posted By: Walkscore
Date Posted: August 29 2018 at 21:08
| The band House of Love has a wonderful song dedicated to the power of the music of (both) The Beatles and the Stones (called, perhaps unsurprisingly, "The Beatles and the Stones"). |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 30 2018 at 04:17
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: August 30 2018 at 09:20
I think it was the same thing with the radio short wave invasion of the Communist world, by playing Beatles, Rolling Stones and many other bands ... it got the youngsters attention, which I think helped bring things to a major change eventually. There were several doing this in the 60's and 70's. There is a song, by Guru Guru on their album TANGO FANGO that kinda mentions the differences in music between East and West Germany and makes a nice satire of the whole thing, but in the end, it's feedback and rock music ... as the new representatives of the young folks, in both countries. I always find that piece fascinating, despite my not understanding German, but the intent is quite obvious and fun. The book about "krautrock" (Future Days) also discusses this a lot. So, yes, there is a lot to be said about non-commercial radio and its place in the airwaves. I do wish, however, that the Internet took on a bit more of that spirit ... though too much of the material out there is just fan-raves for the same record companies and top selling/sounding bands. It's really hard to find something original, that doesn't go back to a "known" piece of music 5 minutes later! ------------- 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 |
Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: August 30 2018 at 10:13
Maybe, but a god doesn't always get his way. After all, Jim Morrison did sing, "girl we couldn't get much HIGHER" against Sullivan's orders ------------- https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987 |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 30 2018 at 11:15
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Tero1
Date Posted: August 31 2018 at 05:45
| I was in Finland for part of the 60s, and there was some Beatles music on the radio by 65 but not the Stones. Also, covers of Beatles songs, very light rock style. By 69 it was an hour or two of pop music on the radion. State independent FM stations did not appear till about 1980. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 31 2018 at 06:53
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: August 31 2018 at 13:38
| ^As a Finn I would not say so. Although prog has some popularity here in the begin of 2000, I think it could have always said to be here less or more underground. |
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: August 31 2018 at 15:11
| I think prog is underground everywhere. |
Posted By: Braka
Date Posted: August 31 2018 at 16:05
|
Some years ago I knew a guy from Liverpool who had seen The Beatles at The Cavern, and he insisted that Abba were better songwriters. All I could think of was, I wish I could find someone who was jealous of me for growing up in the mid to late 70's in Australia.
|
Posted By: Tero1
Date Posted: August 31 2018 at 19:55
| Im listening to This Was. I never bought the LP and only jumped on to being a Tull fan by Benefit (lots of air play) and Stand Up. I can see the influence of This Was and the somewhat more experimental style. But all in all I would not say they were still much in the category of basic rock, not far from the White Album or Abbey Road. I had some more progressive albums at the time, mostly from cutout bins,as they were not selling in the US. I eventually got This Was as CD. My college days favorite was Thick as a Brick, not Aqualung. By then I had Pink Floyd albums as well. |
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: August 31 2018 at 22:23
|
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: September 02 2018 at 15:31
|
I've never thought that Ian could have been a Beatles fan, so no surprise. The best beatles album for me is Abbey Road, their only prog effort. The side long track, even if made of short songs tied together is for me a true prog track. ------------- Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half. My poor home recorded stuff at https://yellingxoanon.bandcamp.com |
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: September 02 2018 at 16:20
| ^Well, a lot of people say Sgt. Peppers is prog also. I wouldn't say Abbey Road is their only prog album. Nope. I think they hinted at prog but never really made the leap. Then again neither did the Rolling Stones. The Beatles did sew the seeds for the genre but they weren't the only ones. |
Posted By: twosteves
Date Posted: September 03 2018 at 14:36
really don't mind if I sit this one out---but I'll chime in---The Beatles were part of bringing British music to USA--all my fav groups are British ---both of them Yes and Genesis have said that as young lads the Beatles opened up the possibilities of music --so thanks Beatles----I enjoyed both The Beatles and the Stones (especially those early Stones albums) but wasn't obsessed by either---I was more into American bands like CSNY Joni (know she's Canadian) Laura Nyro and the Doors.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 03 2018 at 20:28
Well....Zappa was even more obvious He said about The Shaggs "They are better than the Beatles" You can say sarcastic, joke..Yes....But clearly not a Beatles fan.
------------- 
|