Ian Anderson and the Beatles

Fischman wrote: 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.

Yes, they rode the tide well. After setting the tidal wave in motion.

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. 

Edited by SteveG - August 27 2018 at 14:45

Fischman wrote: SteveG wrote: I 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.  The were definitely a big part.  But responsible?  Certainly not solely responsible.  Exactly to what degree is indeed conjecture.

I'll settle for a big part. I never said that they had an effect on surf music. Did I?

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.

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 doesn´t 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 weren´t 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 didn´t 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, There´s 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.

Dellinger wrote: 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.

That's pretty much what I said. No one's disputing a full orchestra or just partial. But the interlinking orchestral parts were scored and conducted by Peter Knight. There was never a real orchestra named the London Festival Orchestra, as far as I know. It was just a Decca "house orchestra" used to accompany various Decca artists on record when needed.

Edited by SteveG - August 28 2018 at 04:09

SteveG wrote: 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.

^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.

Mortte wrote: ^Well, I quess there really were musicians also in the sixties that didn´t like the Beatles. But I believe even those couldn´t avoid the influences, so much Beatles was all over (at least the western) world!

Agree 100%. Like it or not, even the artists that didn't appreciate the Beatles were part of the zeitgeist!

The Dark Elf wrote: Mortte wrote: ^Well, I quess there really were musicians also in the sixties that didn´t like the Beatles. But I believe even those couldn´t avoid the influences, so much Beatles was all over (at least the western) world! 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."