Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
Do the Beatles get too much credit.. |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 2425262728> |
| Author | |||
himtroy 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: January 20 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1601 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: September 09 2010 at 21:08 |
||
|
I think they definitely get too much credit. It drives me absolutely nuts when people credit them for inventing psych rock. Piper at the Gates of Dawn was recorded at the EXACT same time in the EXACT SAME building and is way more psychedelic than The Beatles ever were. There were so many bands with the same style as the Beatles waiting to break through, the Beatles were just the ones who did, and were the most main stream and well marketed. If listening to prog rock has taught us anything isn't it that popularity does not equal musical quality?
That being said, they have some nice tunes. But they're a pop group, don't blow them out of proportion.
|
|||
|
Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell?
I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
|||
 |
|||
|
Gooner
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: March 14 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 312 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: September 09 2010 at 19:55 |
||
|
....sure The Beatles deserve credit(I used to be a naysayer), but in terms of "prog.rock", I look more towards The Zombies and The Move.(or at least the kind of prog. I listen to...which is generally symphonic with a bit of jazz bent).
|
|||
|
|||
|
topographicbroadways
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 5575 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: September 08 2010 at 14:10 |
||
|
it's definitely a case that i have noticed among people my age and younger (late teens) that the beatles have been told and talked about so much that people like them just because they are the beatles without really stepping back and making a judgement on the music. I never really payed attention to the beatles they were obviously a big step forward for rock and pop music and alot that happened couldn't have happened without them but they are talked about so much that people are almost afraid to admit they don't like the music. Personally i think the early beatles were brilliant but not to my taste their musical peak to me was the white album which i adore
|
|||
 
|
|||
|
|||
|
TheClosing
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 11 2010 Status: Offline Points: 527 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 29 2010 at 13:19 |
||
|
A Day in the Life = First prog.
/thread.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group 
Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Online Points: 36083 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 29 2010 at 13:04 |
||
|
The Beatles were hugely important and influential to pop-rock, that is a no-brainer for me (as I think I made clear). How hugely inventive and originative the Fab Four themselves were is, I think, open to debate. Because they had access to as much free studio time as they wanted due to their huge success, they had the chance to spend plenty of time and experiment a lot in the studio. I think Emerick deserves considerable credit for both bringing their ideas to fruition, and also suggesting other ideas. He minimizes George Martin's importance in the creative department in the latter part of The Beatles career, but I don't think one can deny Martin's importance to the Beatles's success (and that many innovative ideas ideas came from him). I certainly give credit to the Beatles' band members for seeking to experiment and try new things. They put a lot of time into trying new things in the studio, and even incorporated chance "mistakes". Thy sought to try new things, and did, and adapted techniques already in use (for instead tape loops) which were being used in Musique Concrete. I think they had a very good team to work with, but the Beatles themselves deserve a lot of the credit since the studio technicians/ producers, were being pushed to try new things by them, and the Beatles were creative with ideas "Let's try this, and this, and this". That could be pretty frustrating and time consuming for the technicians/ producer.
As for those other bands that were noted that drew heavily on the Beatles, I've never thought of them as being real innovators (i was thinking more in terms of underground, experimental, musique concrete and academic music). Those guys lifted ideas left, right, and centre. I went to a music show last week, and the presenter went on-and-on about the greatness of he Beatles. I do consider the Beatles to be pioneering in pop-rock, and to have had an enormous impact on music, but it struck me overly effusive praise. There was no mention of the likes of Stockhausen, Xenakis, Cage, Nono, Schnittke, Berio or Ligeti as other great modern composers/ innovators (it was not a pop-rock concert, but a general music one). Now, I would hardly say that, say, Xenakis, had nearly the effect on music than, say, John Lennon did (not nearly as influential), and of course I'm talking apples and oranges now. ;) I wonder ifm, say, Stockausen, Ligeti, Xenakis, and Cage had joined forces into their own Fab Four, if they could have had the same impact as a group. Very unlikely. Edited by Logan - August 29 2010 at 13:12 |
|||
|
|||
|
VanVanVan
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 08 2009 Status: Offline Points: 756 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 29 2010 at 09:34 |
||
|
Absolutely not. They deserve every bit of credit they get and then some.
|
|||
|
"The meaning of life is to give life meaning."-Arjen Lucassen
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 16130 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 29 2010 at 05:14 |
||
|
Whatever one may think of the Beatles music, they do deserve a lot of credit for how rock music, prog and otherwise developed in the years that followed their most innovative work. What was established by The Beatles was the principle that rock music didn't have to conform to the 'rules' of rock 'n' roll, and R&B. How influential their actual songs were to songwriters, in terms of melodies, lyrical concepts, etc, I can't really say.
|
|||
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|||
|
|||
|
Weirdamigo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 28 2010 Location: Serbia Status: Offline Points: 181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 29 2010 at 03:21 |
||
|
Many of you say "Yay" but I say "Nay".
The Beatles are one of the bands that starter the whole rock group thing and without them we would not have many great artists today. The influence of the Beatles still lingers in the heart of every rock band. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who and The Yardbirds, without them we wouldn't have our beloved Progressive rock.
|
|||
|
|||
|
resurrection
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 08 2010 Location: London Status: Offline Points: 254 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 29 2010 at 01:15 |
||
|
Absolutely not. If there was no Beatles, there wouldn't be such a thing as a Rock group, it would still be backing group and star. And that's only for starters. They brought song-writing to the musician's repertoire, though that was a double-edged sword. It opened up the door to bands writing and performing their own music, but it also encouraged people who can't write to get away with it, ultimately diluting the quality of the content, and cutting out real song-writers - Tin Pan Alley was doomed.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Floydman
Forum Groupie 
Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 29 2010 at 00:26 |
||
Who is without influence and no one said they had no influences. I like to know did the Beatles actually say they created music without influence. It seems to me some of you are trying to find chinks in their legacy and it's not there. Unlike say Led Zeppelin, The Beatles always gave credit to their influences. Unlike the Rolling Stones who was basically copying the Beatles every move until "You Can't Always Get What You Wan't" their answer to "Hey Jude" the Beatles came in sounding like no one else before them. Even a cover say like "Twist and Shout" sound and style is nothing like you would hear from a Motown or R&B group.
As for the Velvet Underground I like to know where their influence has been to pop music or how people actually write and record music. I know the Velvet Underground have been influential to altlernative music but let's not forget the Beatles have been hugely influential to groups like Nirvana and basically the whole of British Altlernative Music . The Velvet Underground especially John Cale were influenced by the Beatles.
John Cale: "I was just starting to work with VU down in the "They were a driving force in the Velvets, and made us work harder "Norwegian Wood had this atmosphere that I just remember as being Edited by Floydman - August 29 2010 at 00:38 |
|||
|
|||
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 09 2004 Location: Front Range Status: Offline Points: 7028 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 28 2010 at 23:53 |
||
|
^ yeah forgot about Jeff Buckley
 .
|
|||
|
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
|||
|
|||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 28 2010 at 23:39 |
||
A R Rahman blows hot and cold. I have been into his music since I was 8 (well, I am just 24 anyway  )...sometimes, he comes up with sublime stuff and sometimes it's just superficial bullcrap, as harsh as this may sound. He is too much in love with production and recording wizcraft to put together enough great songs. His predecessor in South India Ilayaraja was miles and miles ahead of him but sadly doesn't get his due because he is not as hyped as ARR be it in India or worldwide. Prasanna is a fabulous guitarist in India, making some great Carnatic-jazz fusion that evokes the spirit of Raja's adventures. No idea about Nitin Sawhney. Jeff Buckley married the spiritual essence of qawali and sufi to pop, alternative rock quite beautifully too. |
|||
|
|||
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 09 2004 Location: Front Range Status: Offline Points: 7028 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 28 2010 at 23:34 |
||
I think there have been some great artists coming out of the UK and Pakistan/India with Western feel just not as impressionable as John Maclaughlin/Shakti and the Beatles
|
|||
|
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
|||
|
|||
|
Floydman
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 28 2010 at 22:49 |
||
Who knows who did what first? I mean I have heard people call "Ticket to Ride" or the proto hippie song "The Word" and even "Norwegian Wood" especially Take 2 of "Norwegian Wood" as being psychedelic and it's before "Eight Miles High". The early Beatles sound has been called the original source of Power Pop. The Beatles were using intentional feedback, volume swells, fuzz bass, and guitar drones not to mention sitar, loops, backward vocals and guitars on record before both the Kinks and the Yardbirds. I mean I don't know how many rock guitarists were using harmonics when the Beatles recorded "Yes it Is" but George Harrison uses both volume swells and guitar harmonics to imitate a steel pedal.
Yet the poster doesn't mention these things does he? Were rock bands recording full blown Indian ragas "Love You To" and songs with no rock instruments with just strings and vocals "Eleanor Rigby" or sustained piano chords that go for about a minute "A Day in the Life"? Not to mention "Revolution #9" all these things expanded on what could be on a rock record.
Roger McGuinn thinks the Beatles invented folk rock and got his 12 string jangle sound from George Harrison. At least a year before the Byrds were recording country influence music the Beatles were already doing it on Beatles For Sale in 1964. George Harrison was the first rock guitarist to actually to record his guitar breaks backwards and play Indian instruments like the sitar or tamboura. I mean Jeff Beck wasn't playing a sitar or tamboura on Yardbird records.
The Beatles were using things like loops, and backward tape to construct their psychedelic sound and that style was totally different than the West Coast Psychedelic Sound. People will say the Beatles and Dylan were the first rock artists to able to write full albums without filler. It could go on and on really but in the end it comes down to songwriting and how the Beatles used the studio, instruments and use of non rock sources to mesh those songs together. Edited by Floydman - August 28 2010 at 23:15 |
|||
|
|||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 28 2010 at 22:33 |
||
I agree with this, what they achieved in their prime Rubber Soul - Abbey Road phase was simply incredible. But again, Logan was talking about getting credit for "being the first", I think. If he said their albums are too overrated, I would have to disagree. |
|||
|
|||
|
Floydman
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 28 2010 at 22:31 |
||
I agree or understand your point. As for the Beatles IMO they were only a recording group for what 7 years yet they recorded Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepper with singles sprinkled in like "We Can Work It Out", "Rain" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" in 18 months. Please when I read "Do the Beatles get too much credit?. I wonder the person who started the thread knows the state of modern music and how actually how underrated what the Beatles did in their 7 or 8 years of recorded music? As a musician I'm floored in what they did.
Edited by Floydman - August 28 2010 at 22:32 |
|||
|
|||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 28 2010 at 22:19 |
||
Yes it is not their fault of course, I never said it is. As I said earlier, in the case of Beatles, their recognition is richly deserved but I am not sure that in every case, bands popular with both the musicians and the audience necessarily 'deserve' much greater recognition than other underrated artists. Even as a Deep Purple fan, I find Smoke on the Water underwhelming and cringe when musicians and listeners alike call it the greatest hard rock riff. Yeah, so what about Black f***ing Sabbath? And Sabbath aren't even an unknown band at all. You see my point. This blind and almost unthinking herd mentality in rock is at odds with the spirit of non conformism and rebellion it is supposed to extol. |
|||
|
|||
|
Floydman
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 28 2010 at 22:15 |
||
I will say this I think the Beatles popularity with both musicians and the buying public is why threads like this are started. Again it's not the Beatles fault that some underground artist didn't or is not getting the due someone thinks they deserve. Most underground artists or regular artists don't write the melodies and harmonies the Beatles did. Robert Fripp I remember commented on how amazed the Beatles pulled this off constantly. This is why their songs are covered by thousands of musicians from jazz to World Music. Edited by Floydman - August 28 2010 at 22:17 |
|||
|
|||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 28 2010 at 22:08 |
||
I disagree with this. Am I expected to kneel down in worship of Hammett just because a lot of metal musicians cite him as an influence (he was more popular than many others)? It is fortunate that Beatles' quality lives up every bit to their billing but in several cases in later rock history, this doesn't seem to be the case and some less popular artists do lack recognition. |
|||
|
|||
|
Floydman
Forum Groupie
Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: August 28 2010 at 22:02 |
||
I don't think it's over the top because it's the musicians who are crediting the Beatles. It's not the Beatles fault that they are still hugely popular. Look when people like Fripp changes his career path over listening to a song like "A Day in the Life" or Wilson flipping over Rubber Soul means more to me than someone complaning that some underground artist is not getting their due. What does this have to with the Beatles legacy or their influence on musicians? I never understood this line of thinking. Edited by Floydman - August 28 2010 at 22:07 |
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 2425262728> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
thellama73 wrote:
But I also have to say, hand-in-hand, that some Beatles fans act like the deification of Beatles hinges on their being the first to do everything and that's what other people respond to, I think.