Do the Beatles get too much credit..
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=70767
Printed Date: April 28 2024 at 12:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Do the Beatles get too much credit..
Posted By: Logan
Subject: Do the Beatles get too much credit..
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 14:55
|
Undoubtedly the Beatles were hugely influential (has been incredibly popular), but do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination? I certainly think so. ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Replies:
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 15:04
| Maybe a little bit too much credit, especially in recent times, but really I think it's deservedly so. They were one of the groups that showed other people "hey, you know, it's alright to play whatever music we want" and from that stemmed nearly all later music, popular and less so, even if the bands in question aren't influenced in the slightest by the music of the Beatles. It was the concept of creativity for the masses that makes them so important |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 15:11
|
Absolutely not. They're one of the only bands that was immensely popular but never caved in to the record industry. Their early albums are a bit overrated IMO, but the later masterpieces definitely make up for it in the end. One of the most influential, and best, bands ever.
-------------  Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 15:35
|
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. ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: elder08
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 16:23
|
I had this argument with someone the other day about who was better muscially Pink Floyd or The Beatles and I said while the beatles have inspired probably every popular artist today immensely, Pink Floyd pretty much had one kindofsortofnotreally bad album and were pretty much Omega good from the start ------------- "There are people who say we [Pink Floyd] should make room for younger bands. That's not the way it works. They can make their own room."- David Gilmour |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 16:26
|
And in the end, maybe, I don't really care... I think they get the credit they are due. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 16:30
|
My stock answer:
Go listen the the American Graffiti soundtrack. Now go listen to the first couple of Beatles albums.
Then tell me who was innovating. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 16:35
and that's the key difference |
Logan wrote:Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 16:57
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 17:14
|
They deserve every shred of credit.........but the show must go on ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 17:27
This article is for you then, "The Beatles are the most creative band of all time": http://www.starcrost.com/entertainment/beatles.php - http://www.starcrost.com/entertainment/beatles.php ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 17:41
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 17:42
 ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 17:42
|
^^^ Interesting reading, particularly referencing Macca at the most popular songwriter, not necessarily the best. Personally I would put Lennon above Macca for songwriting. They are influential beyond comprehension and hit the music scene at the best possible time. Comparing Beatles to PF would be futile IMO because they impacted different decades while in their prime.
I know this will be frowned upon but in many respects subjective opinions do carry more weight when you were actually there. For example a 20 year old gives Let It Be a three star review and he/she cannot understand all the hype about the album would have to have been around in the NOW to fully appreciate it. Yet to counter that I fully believe that The Beatles will end up being the biggest band of all time for millenia. That would be the popular belief
 Now the best..... ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 17:44
 , I ain't gonna read it.Too much negative energy..LOL------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: caretaker
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 18:03
| I've never been a big Beatles fan but to answer the question I voted no. It seemed like after they did the pop thing their financial success freed them up to do more creative and innovative things which I give them credit for. And they certainly influenced quite a lot of other musicians as they were influenced by the artists of their era. |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 19:33
|
Pet Sounds Pet Sounds Pet Sounds Pet Sounds Pet Sounds +++++, it is the first prog-related album and is verry inovative album, probably not the best but it is damn good, record which sadly are to overshadowed by Sg Pepper..., -------------  
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 20:54
|
I think, as with Metallica, people get carried away in the business of firsts when it comes to Beatles, but there's no denying their influence and importance. Besides, at least in my opinion, they were the best of the big bands, be it pop or rock. It takes a lot of guts to go the 'other way' when you are a successful band and to sign off with arguably your best album. Beatles did it and I can't think of any other big band who have lived up to their example or their quality.
EDIT: Oops, I voted Yes when I meant to say No.
 |
Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 21:27
They deserve the status as being THE MOST INFLUENTIAL ROCK/POP BAND EVER.
Get back to me when you can find evidence of a rock group—any rock group in 1966, but, perhaps even more notably, using multitrack recording to produce something like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and then using their platform as the Most Popular Band in the world to expose millions of listeners to those new sounds
If anything the Beatles were the biggest influence overall on early progressive rockers and psychedelic rock.
The Beatles had influences like everyone else but they came in sounding like no one else "A Hard Day's Night", "I Want to Hold Your Hand", "If I Fell" etc,. The early Kinks, Yardbirds, and The Rolling Stones all sounded like blues wannabees.
The fact the Beatles were the main cog in the British Invasion and George Harrison use of the Ricky12 string guitar really launched folk-rock. The chord usage on songs like "If I Fell" floored people like Bob Dylan and The Byrds and was miles ahead of people like the Rolling Stones and the blues based peers. People like Brian Wilson thought Rubber Soul was the first album that was a complete statement.
Are you kidding me - from a pop music song structure to recording engineering standpoint - you're hard pressed to NOT hear the Beatles influence everywhere in modern pop recordings. Music progresses and people create different styles and techniques. The psychedelic use as a studio instrument for example like loops, varispeeding, backward tape was already a different style than say Brian Wilson or Phil Spector.
Strawberry Fields Forever" was constructed uniquely.. There are edits of three sections taken from two different takes. 0:00 to 0:55 is take 7, 0:55 to 1:00 is another section of take 7, and 1:00 to end is take 26. It is fairly well known that take 26 was really faster and in a higher key, and that slowing it down to match the tempo also brought into the same key. The idea of the edit is credited to the songwriter, John Lennon, while its execution, involving the manipulation of tape speed and the use of the 5-second bridge segment, is credited to the producer, George Martin. It's unlikely that many (or any) recordings done prior to 1962 featured splicing of tape to combine takes or bouncing of tracks. 2 track tape machines (later 4, 8, 16, 24 and on) were not widely available until Studer and Telefunken devloped them their versions in the late 50's/early 60's. Prior to that recordings were mainly made direct to disc - making combining takes impossible. Later in the 60's, some of those direct to disc performances were transferred to tape and performances could then be edited/combined after that. It's a fact that The Beatles' ideas and demands pushed engineers like Norman Smith, Geoff Emerick, Chris Thomas, Glynn Johns, Alan Parsons etc. to develop new techniques that formed the groundwork for modern digital editing we see today with Protools, etc. Knowing an recording engineer. I promise you that if you read up on Beatles recording techniques you'll be astounded at how many things their engineers did for the first time as crazy, rule-breaking ideas, experiments, etc. that have since become common practice in modern day recording and editing. Necessity was the mother of invention in their case. Are you kidding me - from a pop music song structure to recording engineering standpoint - you're hard pressed to NOT hear the Beatles influence everywhere in modern pop recordings. Let's see: some of these not of course invented by the Beatles but certainly invented new ways in using these techniques in creating a rock sound. Use of heavy limiting on drums and guitar (pioneered on Revolver, rarely if ever used before by anyone) - everywhere these days High use of treble and equalization of guitars and vocals (rare before Beatles Rubber Soul) - everywhere afterwards Key changes in middle 8/bridges of songs - everywhere Use of weird/experimental guitar chords in pop songs (VERY IN ROCK MUSIC before the Beatles) - now everywhere Artificial Double Tracking - invented by Beatles Engineer Ken Townsend, now used in one form or another on almost every song by anyone Guitar fuzz box/distortion pedal on bass used by the Beatles "Think For Yourself" during Rubber Soul sessions. You might hear these nowadays too Pioneering use of vocal effects like phasing/revolving Leslie/etc. - pioneered by the Beatles on Revolver, used extensively on Sgt Peppers - used everywhere you hear any slightly psychedelic sounding song Direct Injection (DI) bass and guitar rock recordings - used by Beatles engineers on Revolver and later. Prominent on distorted guitar on Revolution - used by virtually everyone nowadays Use of editing - Used by the Beatles first to combine multiple takes of songs into one - nowadays this is done on virtually every modern pop recording using computer technology like Pro-tools Varispeed recording (speeding up or slowing down recordings to alter the characteristics of instruments or voice) - used extensively by the Beatles first on Revolver and afterwards - now used commonly The list could go on an on. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 21:46
|
I think they get a bit too much credit. They were undeniably one of the most groundbreaking and influential bands ever, but people act like they did it in a vacuum, with no help from their contemporaries. Pet Sounds was almost as influential as anything the Beatles did, but the Beach Boys are commonly dismissed as a one trick surf rock pony. The Velvet Underground arguably had even more influence on the music of the late seventies and eighties, and their debut came out the same year as Sgt. Pepper, showing little debt to the Beatles.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 21:49
I don't have a problem if someone doesn't think they are the greatest or most influential rock band it's their opinion. I think you are way-off base in your opinion basically the Beatles have been the most ripped off and covered musicians/songwriters the last fifty years and I don't think there isn't much debate on that point.
Have you ever thought those underground artists you proclaim didn't get the exposure they deserve were not the songwriters of the likes of Lennon/McCartney or even George Harrison. The West Coast scene like the Grateful Dead and the Jefferson Airplane flipped over songs like "A Day in the Life", "She Said She Said" or Jerry Garcia stunned reaction to "Tomorrow Never Knows" let alone Brian Wilson reaction to "Strawberry Fields Forever".
Music progresses and people create different styles and techniques. The psychedelic use as a studio instrument for example like loops, varispeeding, backward tape was already a different style than say Brian Wilson or Phil Spector.
Whether the Beatles invented psychedelic rock or raga rock doesn't take away what they did with it. Who knows who invented what but Beatles-bashers seem to think that if they can prove the Beatles didn't INVENT something, then the group doesn't deserve any credit for USING it creatively. Again get back to me when you can find evidence of the Kinks or the Yardbirds or any rock group in 1966,, using multitrack recording to produce something like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and then using their platform as the Most Popular Band in the world to expose millions of listeners to those new sounds. Honestly if you know anything about music would you call George Harrison use of classical Indian as dabbling. Nothing against Coltrane or the Kinks but it's not the same thing especially in the classical sense maybe read this book it explains it well. Lavezzoli, Peter (2010). The Dawn Of Indian Music In The West
|
Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 21:53
Well, I wonder who influenced Brian Wilson to those great heights on Pet Sounds. I think it was those Beatles who released Rubber Soul and "We Can Work it Out". People can argue who did what first but let's give some credit where it deserves. Oh yeah do we forget before the Beatles got to Sgt.Pepper there was Revolver which was already influencing Brian Wilson Smile and the singles "Rain" or the song that broke Brian Wilson "Strawberry Fields Forever".
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 21:56
Fine, then you have to give credit to Brian Wilson for inspiring Sgt. Pepper. Don't be so defensive. No one here is attacking the Beatles. We all immensely admire and respect them. We're trying to have a discussion about whther the amount of hero worship they are currently given is a bit over the top. -------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 28 2010 at 21:56
As an Indian, I will certainly back you up on the last point. Beatles and Shakti must be the only Western artists who I have heard who used Indian classical music beautifully in a Western idiom. The enlightenment in Beatles's approach to using Indian music is astonishing, they really understood the 'spirit' of it and didn't just go for the superficial raga bling. I haven't heard the aforementioned Kinks song but in general, I have rarely heard Indo-Western fusion done well. That it might appeal to Westerner's tastes is beside the point, as an Indian brought up on 'my' music, I am entitled to believe I know better. I agree broadly with the rest of your post too. The important thing is how they did it and not what. It's lamentable that in much music discussion, people talk about the whats while discussing an artist's importance. Just getting there first doesn't make you God but doing it magnificently might.  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. |
Posted By: Floydman
Date 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.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date 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. |
Posted By: Floydman
Date 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.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date 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. |
Posted By: Floydman
Date 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.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date 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. |
Posted By: Floydman
Date 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. |
Posted By: Chris S
Date 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] |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date 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. |
Posted By: Chris S
Date 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] |
Posted By: Floydman
Date 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 |
Posted By: resurrection
Date 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. |
Posted By: Weirdamigo
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date 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! |
Posted By: VanVanVan
Date 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 |
Posted By: Logan
Date 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. ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: TheClosing
Date Posted: August 29 2010 at 13:19
|
A Day in the Life = First prog. /thread.
|
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date 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 -------------  
|
Posted By: Gooner
Date 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). |
Posted By: himtroy
Date 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. |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: September 09 2010 at 21:10
That is a horribly inaccurate comment. So many things predate it that are more progressive. Even the Byrds are more progressive than the Beatles!
------------- 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. |
Posted By: TheClosing
Date Posted: September 09 2010 at 21:50
The Byrds are more prog than A Day in the Life ? Get real man. I'd love to hear what else you've got. ADitL is the most epic four minutes and forty-five seconds in the history of music. It is without a doubt the defining moment of prog in my mind, and I'm by no means a Beatles fanboy.
|
Posted By: Lark the Starless
Date Posted: September 09 2010 at 23:24
|
I'd say they slightly get too much credit....but a good chunk of it is definitely deserved. ------------- 
|
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 01:02
People just want to bring the Beatles into everything these days. I never thought I'd hear people claim that A Day in the Life was a start of prog rock...thats ridiculous. ------------- 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. |
Posted By: Matthew T
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 01:08
No............Bloody genius      ------------- Matt |
Posted By: TheClosing
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 03:05
Many music connoisseurs consider it the start of progressive rock for a good reason. A Day in the Life was the game changer. I feel you don't understand the impact because you weren't around at the time and you don't want to give due credit either. "When I was 20, I worked at a hotel in a dance orchestra, playing weddings, bar-mitzvahs, dancing, cabaret. I drove home and I was also at college at the time. Then I put on the radio (Radio Luxemburg) and I heard this music. It was terrifying. I had no idea what it was. Then it kept going. Then there was this enormous whine note of strings. Then there was this colossal piano chord. I discovered later that I'd come in half-way through Sgt. Pepper, played continuously. My life was never the same again." - Robert Fripp "It (Sgt Pepper) had an amazing effect on the way people saw records. I mean, people suddenly thought - oh, well you can do that? Well they've done it so of course you can do it. So I suppose it opened a door and showed everyone there's another room that you can all play around in." - Phil Collins "The Beatles. They broke down every barrier that ever existed. Suddenly you could do anything after The Beatles. You could write your own music, make it ninety yards long, put it in 7/4, whatever you wanted." - Bill Buford |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 06:02
That is horribly incorrect! mention those who state they invented psych rock (whatever you mean by 'psych rock').
That is horribly incorrect! A Day In The Life was recorded before Pink Floyd entered the sudio.
That is horribly incorrect! I would like to know those bands please.
That is horribly wrong! You obviously do not know what pop music is.
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 07:20
| To appreciate the full impact of The Beatles, you had to be around at the time. The quotes from Fripp and Bruford above are typical of the impact Sgt Pepper had on musicians when it was release - it gave them the freedom to experiment in the studio as The Fabs were the first band to have the real power to do that. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 07:23
Great post. Can I also add that, outside of the music, they were the first to look on the album cover as a proper work of art with gatefold sleeves and the lyrics printed on the sleeve itself.
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 07:57
|
I voted 'No' but with the caveat that they are afforded waaaay too many royalty cheques as the unwitting architects of Prog. Brilliantly written, arranged, performed and recorded pop songs are things very close to my heart but have precisely squat to do with the ultimate achievements and innovation of ELP, Crimson, the Nice, Genesis and Yes etc Whenever the Fab Four attempted to step too far outside the verse/chorus/middle eight format they fell flat on their faces IMO. e.g. Revolution # 9 being but a gauche fanboys homage to Stockhausen amounting to no more than weird random sh*t. Even Lennon's much trumpeted experimentation e.g. Strawberry Fields, Tomorrow Never Knows, Mr Kite etc (which I adore) work because despite their prescient and innovative structures, it's the tried and tested glue of classic songcraft that means they're still standing today. John's one abiding love in music was very basic early rock'n'roll. As far as pop songs are concerned, the Beatles have no peers. ------------- 
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 08:07
I think the quotes above from Fripp and Bruford clearly show that is incorrect.
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 08:16
|
Point taken Chopper but creating a door doesn't make anybody an architect.
-------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 08:16
Er, what? Constructing a short song that is absolutely not cliched in any way, is very fresh and still hits the spot right on the first listen and appeals to a large audience is possibly the hardest kind of songwriting there is. And few could master it the way Beatles did, Stevie Wonder in the 70s came close. Certainly none of your beloved prog rock bands could have written pop masterpieces like either artist and the evidence of Genesis and Yes seems to support my statement. Your statements seem to suggest that you have great difficulty in accepting that a Beatles fan too, like fans of any other band, would have heard their music and formed coherent opinions on it and want to believe that we all blindly follow the herd. Which other band in the 60s could have written Love You to, Day In the Life, Because, I Want You, Tomorrow Never Knows, Taxman, Strawberry Fields Forever, In My Life, Penny Lane? That is such an eclectic mix of songs. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 10:49
|
Yes. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 12:42
Interesting the Beatles as voted by 200 musicians on VH1 100 GREATEST ARTISTS WERE VOTED THE NUMBER ONE ARTIST. I would like to know what bands were doing songs like "Eleanor Rigby", "Tomorrow Never Knows" or most of Sgt Pepper. They sound nothing like the Doors or even the Beach Boys Pet Sounds. The Beatles had influences like everyone else but basically every band reacted to what the Beatles were doing and some of it was negative though
Please get your facts straight The Beatles already recorded "Tomorrow Never Knows' and much of Revolver in April 1966. In fact Syd Barrett main influence was the Beatles and "Arnold Layne" was influenced by "Strawberry Fields Forever"
The Musical Influences of Syd Barrett
The Beatles 'Revolver' (1966 Strawberry Fields Forever' (single 17 February 1967) *'Strawberry Fields Forever' marked the way for Barrett in its revolutionary use of poetic images and superb psychedelic arrangement. It was released just ten days before the sessions for 'Arnold Layne', which bears its influence. Beatles 'Seargent Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band' ( |
Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 12:59
I don't get this at all. The early Beatles as lauded by people like Dylan, Richards and specifically the Byrds were known for their interesting chord choices.
Most rock bands prior the Beatles hardly used bridges or middle eights or even changed time signatures. Which means the Beatles as compared to their blues-based peers were changing chords and melodies much more than someone in 1964-1965. The Beatles didn't use a chorus in many of their songs or the basic blues structure of verse/verse/verse. Songs like "You Can't Do That" messed with the basic blues model by using the blues based verse and then adding a pop like styled bridge on songs "You Can't Do That" or "She's A Woman" basically creating blues/pop hybrid. One of the many reasons they sounded different than American artists.
The Beatles would actually change time signatures on the bridge which was basically unheard of in rock music in songs like "We Can Work It Out" and "She Said She Said". Songs like "Good Morning Good Morning" constantly changed time signatures and "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" alternated 3/4 and 4/4 which each section. Not really common stuff in rock music.
There is nothing basic about the song structures on many of the tracks after Rubber Soul espeically "A Day in the Life" or "Happiness is a Warm Gun". People criticize "Revolution #9" but what actually is the song structure for that?
|
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 13:53
|
13th Floor elevators heavily predate the Beatles, AND their music is more psychedelic. Even some mid sixties jazz was more psychedelic than The Beatles, who aren't even very psychedelic. Regardless, I'm going to keep this going to close in on my 1000 posts. ------------- 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. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 14:03
|
Just cause we're talking psyche, Fifty Foot Hose's Cauldron is a favourite of mine (from 1967). ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 16:33
Brian Wilson only aspired to make Pet Sounds after listening to Rubber Soul. Sorry, Beatles still win.  |
Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 07:11
Does it really matter who did what first or who was more psychedelic? Some of the more psychedelic Beatles songs were psychedelic or trippy without the use of any guitars like "Blue Jay Way" or "Only a Northern Song" or constructed with loops "Tomorrow Never Knows" as a musical backdrop if you want to talk about innovation or creating psychedelic music. I know their were other great bands but listen to the freaky to the fade out/silence/then fades back in with reversed freaky electronic effects and jam on "Strawberry Fields Forever". No one on the rock side were doing things like this to be honest.
I think when you are as popular and influential as the Beatles some people need to something to bring them down. As it is the Beatles you hear some psychedelic influences on Rubber Soul.
The 13th Floor Elevators covered the Beatles "The Word" which I think they viewed the song with some psychedelic influences. So again 13th Floor elevators don't even predate the Beatles. If anything they influenced 13th Floor elevators first.
|
Posted By: Pelata
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 15:23
| It is impossible to give The Beatles too much credit... |
Posted By: CloseToTheMoon
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 15:34
| To this day, I don't think they get enough credit. In fact, I meet more kids that hate them. They don't understand the context of the music industry in which they emerged. They didn't show off their musicality, but if you ever tried to learn a Beatles song on guitar, you probably got a whole new respect for them. Is there a chord they never used? |
Posted By: CloseToTheMoon
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 15:35
| To this day, I don't think they get enough credit. In fact, I meet more kids that hate them. They don't understand the context of the music industry in which they emerged. They didn't show off their musicality, but if you ever tried to learn a Beatles song on guitar, you probably got a whole new respect for them. Is there a chord they never used? |
Posted By: ShipOfFools
Date Posted: October 07 2010 at 05:31
|
In my opinion, they were the very first 'rock band.' They defined it all; the popularity, the fan craziness, the experimentation, the intelligent interviews they gave, the movies they made. There were a few other bands around that time, that sort of faded out...like Herman's Hermits. The Beatles, on the other hand, continued on...and their legacy lives on, 50 years later. I defy you to name a person under the age of 12 who has never heard of The Beatles. -------------  "Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings peace" - Buddha |
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: January 22 2011 at 06:50
I agree
Who did something first matters in terms of innovation and origination - which was what OP asked us to consider. Besides, you can't draw generalizations based on details and random state of affairs and present it is a fact - so I can't be pursuaded by reasoning of the sort "the 13th floor elevators covered a particular beatles track -> they were - as a fact and generally - inspired by the beatles." It's reasonable to say that the elevators with their debut "The Psychedelic Sounds of The 13th Floor Elevators (1966)" pre-dates the beatles in producing an actual full-blown psychedelic album - both in terms of sound and 'ideology'. I don't consider the album particularly beatlesque - and in terms of 'psychedelity', they make the beatles sound like children's music. They were (of course) inspired by many things (drugs, music, litterature, psychology, philosophy, society etc. etc.), and the beatles probably fit in there somewhere - but I find it very likely that it wasn't the beatles who introduced 13th floor elevators to psychedelic music and ideology.
Evidence of a band using the particular recording technique beatles did to produce something that sounds like a particular beatles track? Good luck! You must have had too many of these:  "The Beatles. They broke down every barrier that ever existed. Suddenly you could do anything after The Beatles. You could write your own music, make it ninety yards long, put it in 7/4, whatever you wanted" (Bill Bruford). It doesn't become a fact because Bruford says what he says.
|
Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: January 22 2011 at 08:59
First are you telling me the 13th Floor Elevators were not influenced by the Beatles? Are you dismissing the fact they covered “The Word”? If you are you're sipping your own cool aid because basically every Psyh/prog/folk rock band were somewhat influenced by the Beatles. The 13th Floor Elevators Influence by http://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-rolling-stones-p5298" rel="nofollow - - The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Buddy Holly, the Kinks, The Yardbirds, Bo Diddley are some of the people who they cite as an influence. The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators recorded October 10, 1966 at Sumet Sound Studios, Dallas The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows", ‘Rain” and a few others recorded in April of 1966. The Beatles didn't limit themselves to one one style of music so keep that in mind but on Revolver there are at least 4 psych songs. Yet Revolver predates The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators recorded as being at least one of the first psych albums so why are even debating this I don't know. Must be a anti-Beatles thing with some people. Read the book "Every Sound There Is; The Beatles Revolver and the Transformation of Rock and Roll" By Russell Reising there is a whole chapter on the Beatles influence on Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd didn’t invent psych-rock either but they created a new sound. When Robert Buford said the Beatles were using 7/4 time signature in rock he was stating by using odd times the Beatles influenced him especially how they skipped beats using that time signature. Not really common stuff in rock more common in the jazz music he liked. . Yet whether the Beatles invented psychedelic rock or not they were extremely innovative in how they were intentionally using these techniques in creating what they thought tripping was. It’s basically psychedelic use of the studio as an instrument in which many ways helped influenced other forms of music like progressive rock, for example. The Beatles by using these techniques created a whole new sound way ambient sounds from loops, ambient seascape sound collages, backward guitars and vocals, Automatic Double Tracking, vocals from Leslie speakers, cosmic sounding rhythmic loops fading in and out, using eastern Indian drones, disorienting fade outs, using delay and changing time, mellotrons, phasing, loud up front drum & bass sounds yeah like you find many of these techniques in some form of the other in most psych/prog/electronic songs that came after words that you find on Revolver/Rain. If you want to find a song that is exactly like say "Tomorrow Never Knows" you won't exactly find one well there is King Crimson "Tomorrow Never Knew Thela" or showing how ahead of it's time the Chemical Brothers "Setting Sun". Here's some release dates on charted hits I think qualify as Psychedelic (or at least hit some trippy psychedelic overtones) for 1965 and 1966:
6/5/1965 | The Chiffons - "Nobody Knows What's Going On (in My Mind But Me)" [Laurie 3301] |
Posted By: irrelevant
Date Posted: January 22 2011 at 09:16
|
Cell phone companies must like The Beatles very much. ------------- https://gabebuller.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - New album! http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385 |
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: January 23 2011 at 09:15
No.
I backgrounded that piece of information because I don't judge it particularly important. It's self-evident that the beatles were immensely influential and widely covered, but I think it's safe to say that they didn't teach the elevators how to play psychedelic music. Secondly, you use extremely suggestive and defensive rhetorics, where you present an abundance of facts and use them as 'hostages' to jump directly to generalizations that suggest you are indisputably right and that I must be some sort of beatles hater - that's ridiculous. Psychedelic music wasn't created in some particular recording studio at some particular time by some particular group of individuals. It was a movement in many disguises using a great diversity of artistic expressions - more or less interrelated. You can argue that revolver and perhaps rubber soul has psychedelic traits and thus the beatles pre-dates the elevators in making psychedelic music. But this mechanic approach only reveals a rather insignificant detail and leaves many aspects unconsidered. If you consider the the nature of revolver vs. the psychedelic sounds of.. there is clear difference in terms of how psychedelic the albums are. The psychedelic sounds of is a full-blow psychedelic album both in terms of sounds and 'ideology' - the notes on the back-cover explicitly describes their psychedelic approach to music and life in general. So, in terms of 'psychedelity', revolver doesn't stand a chance against the psychedelic sounds of.. - regardless of the fact that it was recorded some six months earlier. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: January 23 2011 at 09:43
True, but he is not the only respected musician to have said something similar, by a long way. Fripp is another. |
Posted By: Paravion
Date Posted: January 23 2011 at 10:16
|
^I know. Bruford probably didn't utter the words in a context where he was determined to show that the beatles are the center of the pop-rock universe and the creators of everything. The words also seem intentionally exaggerated (it's a little much to state that all these things were in fact impossible before the beatles) The beatles deserve a lot of recognition for their influence - but don't overdo it. Bruford's words are used out of context in this thread - and any conclusions you may jump to based on the quote are inevitably very uncertain.
|
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: January 23 2011 at 11:38
|
Yes, they went from being a pure boy band to being a second tier psych band. They were influencial, because they were already everywhere (anyone, anywhere could hear their music), but never anything special themselves. -------------  Time always wins. |
Posted By: The_Jester
Date Posted: January 23 2011 at 12:02
|
Are you saying that they are not the musical giants they are. That they were only a little part of the musical revolution. To the first state I say, no. To the second one, I say yes. They were following the mouvement that they partly created along with the Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, etc. ------------- La victoire est éphémčre mais la gloire est éternelle! - Napoléon Bonaparte |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: January 23 2011 at 12:25
|
I am saying they were rock giants because they had been pop giants with an established fanbase. A lot of lesser known bands made much better music but didn't have the notoriety that comes with stringing together a bunch of friendly little pop songs. In other words: they weren't the first band to make psychedelic or borderline-prog music, they just happened to be the most well known. Their influence was on the market, more than anything. I'm glad they helped open the door for psych/music, better than theirs, to become more widely listened to but I really don't think it wouldn't have happened without them. ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 23 2011 at 12:32
|
King Crimson Debut - 1969 Pink Floyd Debut - 1967 Beatles Revolver - 1966 Beach Boys Pet Sounds - 1966 ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Anthony H.
Date Posted: January 23 2011 at 13:09
This. -------------  |
Posted By: overmatik
Date Posted: January 31 2011 at 16:30
|
You know what pisses me off, these people saying the Beatles are untouchables, and you can`t even lift a finger to say anything about them, this is lame. They were amazing, but they are not the greatest band ever. As for the kids that can`t appreciate the Beatles, poor kids. But hey, they have so many great things going on right? ------------- "Wear the grudge like a crown of negativity. Calculate what we will or will not tolerate. Desperate to control all and everything. Unable to forgive your scarlet letterman." |
Posted By: Floydman
Date Posted: February 01 2011 at 12:07
That is very subjective to say that lesser known bands made better music than the Beatles. I would say that the bands you are talking about didn't have two great songwriters like the Beatles did. The Beatles were masters of the use of the bridge, outstanding use of melody and inventive chord progressions. Those things were not usually at the fore-front of rock and roll music that came before them.
No one band is solely responsible for Progressive Rock but Fripp, Collins and other members have stated for the record the massive influence of the Beatles. The people who are comparing the Beatles to Zappa forget one major point is the Beatles were first and most importantly were master songwriters and Zappa wanted to be Edgar Varesse and melded many forms including doo-wop, and blues with rock, classical, jazz and you name it.
The Beatles, I would argue were more radical or innovative than Zappa with "Tomorrow Never Knows" with it's use of live rhythmic loops, has basically no harmonic motions, extremely repetitive bass and drum sound and altered processed vocal sound. Not to mention that it uses backward guitar break and ambient sounds created by using sped up loops. Also on "Eleanor Rigby" modal harmonies with it's instrumental texture only being a rhythmic string section and vocals in counterpoint. For example even back to Rubber Soul has sitar and three modal shifts or going to Sgt. Pepper "A Day in the Life" which is Prog sorry with it's orchestral build up, multiple sections, changes of time singatures, the Paul section in a different key from the "John section to represent waking up to reality. There are plenty of examples of this past Rubber Soul.
In the impossible to separate the Beatles from their influence though. In the early 60's hundreds of bands were cropping up to capitlize on the Beatles success. An entire generation followed and even copied the Beatles artistic treands. They influenced countless other bands, as well musical forumlas that the albums as an artistic statement instead of just a collection of singles and some filler.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: February 21 2011 at 15:39
| To me, the Beatles were more of a pop hit group than a rock band. Sort of a skilled boy-band of the 60's; I think they are incredibly overrated, particularly in the singing department. They had a few innovative tendencies, but to me they will always be second-tier in comparison to the Animals or the Beach Boys. I will grant that their music has aged quite well from the Abbey Road/Srgt Pepper era (especially compared to Frank Zappa's early work), but all they did was write uncomplicated pop songs. I've never understood the appeal of albums like "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver," both of which I find incredibly annoying. Most of their music sounds dated, trite, tacky, peppy, commercialized, and lacking in timelessness. On the flipside, albums like "Let It Be" are overproduced schlock. I can't stand the Beatles, or anything they represent. Even the Bee-Gees and the Monkees are more enjoyable than Lennon and Co. from my standpoint, since they were at least explicitly commercial and didn't try to mask themselves behind cutesy garbage facades like Srgt Pepper. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 21 2011 at 16:48
I really shouldn't rise to this sort of nonsense. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 21 2011 at 17:07
So, I take it you don't like the Beatles?
Your subjective negativity aside, I believe you've missed the boat on this one. When you mention "they had a few innovative tendencies", I must refer you to the first page of this thread where Floydman documented a long and detailed list of innovations that is incomparable. I might add that Help and Hard Day's Night (and in 1969, Let it Be) were influential in the making of later rock movies and rockumentaries, and the advent of the music video format was profoundly effected by The Beatles' experimental work (starting in 1966 with a promotional piece for "Rain" and brought into further focus with "Strawberry Fields Forever") .
When you say "all they did was write uncomplicated pop songs", are you aware that doctoral theses have been written on the subtle intricacies of "She's Leaving Home" and "A Day in the Life", or that "Eleanor Rigby", composed in Dorian mode with double string quartet, Is heavily influenced by both Vivaldi and Bernard Hermann? In addition, the influences of composer Karlheinz Stockhausen (whose likeness appears in the back row of the famous photo on the Sgt. Peppers album) is evident in several more avante-garde offerings from the Beatles (Stockhausen was also a notable influence of Zappa, The Who and Pink Floyd).
As far as the Beach Boys, they admitted their innovative Pet Shop Sounds was influenced by Rubber Soul, the Bee-Gees were ardent Beatle admirers and copiers, and The Monkees were literally invented to mimic the Beatles (with Neil Diamond shadow-composing mock Beatles tunes for The Monkees' use).
As far as their music sounding "dated, trite, tacky, peppy, commercialized, and lacking in timelessness", Beatles music has been played or excerpted by Hendrix, Bowie, Cocker, Sinatra, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Clapton, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Cure, Oasis (the Gallaghers being immense fans), the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Ozzie Osbourne, The Ben Folds Five, Franz Ferdinand, Fiona Apple, and countless others; in fact, the song "Yesterday" is the most covered rock song in history.
So, is it the Beatles lacking timelessness, or are you simply out of time? I am opting for the latter. By the way, have you heard the Beatles' remastered albums? The entire catalogue sold 3x platinum in the U.S. -- more than 40 years after the albums were first released. I think the Beatles will outlast both of us. ------------- ...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: Guests
Date Posted: February 21 2011 at 19:35
|
^The only pioneering aspects of the Beatles were manifested in how they marketed themselves (movies, tv, action figures, etc.) and in the innovation of certain recording techniques that they used. The influence of the classical composers you listed seems negligible, in that the Beatles did not set out to replicate those musical elements in their songs. They have more in common with Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry (who were more obvious direct musical influences) than with Vivaldi. Listening to their songs gives me a distinct impression that they were focused less on the music, and more on vocal harmony and pop singing. In this way, they are incredibly innovative if you are talking about Britney Spears.
Of course you would mention Oasis. I hate Oasis more than the Beatles, and I hate the Beatles quite a lot. Oasis is a band with no redeeming qualities. Along with Weezer. Fortunately, over half the musicians you listed I can't stand. Not a good track record for the Beatles I must say, when Ben Folds Five and Franz Ferdinand are your major admirers.
I hate "Yesterday." What a trite and ridiculous song. Good thing he "believes in yesterday," because I wasn't so sure it existed. Good job Paul McCartney, you reminded me to wake up this morning, otherwise I would have been forever stuck without ever knowing how the Gregorian calender functions.
Anyone who wastes eight years writing a PhD dissertation on the Beatles needs to get a life. Go study a real subject in college, stop harassing your family for tuition money, and learn a trade that is actually marketable in the physical universe. I have more respect for pole dancers and Las Vegas showgirls than for someone who devotes their life to analyzing Nietzche's influence on Sargeant Pepper, or whatever crass B.S. some academic nobody has dreamed into existence.
The sheeple will buy anything that critics and MTV tell them to buy. End of story.
Like Jesus, the Beatles are incredibly overrated. Let's move on with our lives.
|
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: February 21 2011 at 21:15
I'm sorry, but your lack of credible information regarding The Beatles does nothing to bolster your argument regarding the group, nor does your disregard imply anything but a lack of musical reference. The great Leonard Bernstein said admiringly that Lennon/McCartney were the "Schuberts of our time", William Mann, classical critic of The Times in the 1960s connected cadences present in their compositions to Mahler, and Allen Kozinn, classical music critic of the New York Times, wrote a book about the structure of Beatles compositions. These are classically trained professionals we are referring to who are more interested in symphonies than rock music, but they have no issue referring to the classical references found in Beatles multi-key masterworks.
The use of dominants (chords built on the fifth degree of the prevailing key), carefully ascending or descending arpeggios, the generation of tension and release through resolution, perfect fifth root movements, tritone substitution -- the Beatles had an uncanny knack for putting the perfect chords with the perfect tonality and matching their harmonies with a textbook classicism one would find in Mozart, Brahms or Schubert.
But, as you said "let's move on with our lives", which is exactly what I feel about this conversation, as it is pretty much a dead end. Enjoy whatever it is that you listen to.
------------- ...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: Blue Effect
Date Posted: February 21 2011 at 23:22
Surreal "Yesterday" story....
An aquaintance of mine in the Czech Republic was drunk one night and drove into a train and died. Since he wasn't religious the funeral service was your standard commie-era city hall affair. They had the casket lying on a plank that extended out of the wall facing the mourners. When the speaker finished up a Muzak version of Yesterday started playing and the casket was slowly swallowed up into the wall. One of his male business associates showed up with his hair dyed bright blue which also added to the strangeness.
I cannot hear that song without thinking of that funeral.
|
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 00:16
| Overrated, yes. Even their best albums seem to get elated more than they should. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 00:23
|
We all know Dream Theater was the primary font of innovation in early rock music.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 06:58
That's more or less what I was going to say, thanks. I would also add that calling The Beatles "second-tier" compared to The Animals is just ridiculous. OK, The Animals had a few good singles (the biggest of which wasn't even their song) but I can't think of any album of theirs that is generally rated amongst the greatest of all time, whereas The Beatles would have 4 or 5.
As far as singing goes, listen to the backing vocals on "Here, There and Everywhere" - they were recorded live in the studio by the Beatles standing round 1 mike. The lead vocal's not too shabby either.
Lacking in timelessness? Still voted amongst the greatest artists/albums of all time after over 40 years?
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 11:37
Yes, I was going to bring up this. As in, not exactly what you wrote but it's simply preposterous to dub Day in the Life or Eleanor Rigby simple pop songs. O RLY, would love to hear those millions of pop songs that make these appear 'simple' or dumb. But it is clear from his later post that he is simply holding onto an irrational 'hate' and doesn't really have much to offer by way of coherent argument to support his stand. You are free to dislike the Beatles as much as you wish and also free to suggest that hero-worship of theirs could do with some tempering down but attempting to completely discredit and deny their importance in rock music (and 40 years after the event, no less!) only reflects badly on your own rock appreciation and awareness, not on Beatles or its fans. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 11:47
|
^ I would argue that the Animals singles have aged more gracefully than those of the Beatles. The Animals were far more rooted in blues/rock than the Beatles, they had a fuller sound than the Beatles did in the early 60's, and Eric Burdon was an immensely talented singer without the pop frills that the Beatles often utilized. In addition, his version of "House Of The Rising Sun" has reworked lyrics, and the original Animals songs match the quality of their cover songs. I believe that critical standing is irrelevant, especially if you are talking about the Beatles. Calling them the greatest musicians ever is ludicrous; they would be nothing without Frank Zappa, The Beach Boys (who had far better vocal harmonies), Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, and numerous other artists. The Beatles are a corporate wet-dream, a high-charting singles band who make glorified pop music which happened to garner critical respect. All they were ever about was marketing and image. They are the precursor to the Backstreet Boys, and are not even deserving of being called "rock musicians." The "White Album" was the most rock-like album they ever released, but that was an anomaly. Everything else was simply campy showbiz. Money talks, quality walks. The critics these days are all baby-boomers, and remains sentimental about the musical legacy of their own age. The Beatles were the most acclaimed band of that age, so it makes sense that they anoint the Beatles in such a fashion. However, that doesn't make their perspective accurate. If you go back to the 50's, there is much more interesting music to draw from than the Beatles. Gene Krupa, Buddy Rich, Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, etc. If you go further back, you get Jimmie Rodgers and Frank Sinatra. Then there is Robert Johnson, blues/folk music, then even further back, there is Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. Surely these artists are far more deserving of critical acclaim than the Beatles, who are nothing more than a gentrified, corporate pop act? I've been listening to the Beatles since I was in elementary school. There has never once been a moment where I thought, "it all makes sense now! of course, its the Beatles who are the greatest musicians ever to walk the face of the earth, they are the holy trinity." It makes sense if you subtract Ringo; but in all seriousness, the Beatles adulation has got to stop. It is bad for our world, and for human society, that we assume such nonsense about the Beatles. If you like them, that's fine. I won't go over to your house and deface your precious copies of "Revolver" and "Abbey Road," but please don't try to assert such utter nonsense about the Beatles being the greatest band that has ever lived. They had a few pleasant songs, but they are by no means the most important group of musicians that has ever lived. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 11:55
The Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" is the greatest. The Beatles were nothing more than flatterers and imitators of Brian Wilson. N'Sync has sold millions of albums also, but are they integral to rock history? Nah, its just slick corporate pop. So are the Beatles. Brian Epstein is a marketing genius. |
Posted By: AllP0werToSlaves
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 11:59
|
I would just like to begin by stating that I personally have never been a Beatles fan for whatever reason. I have heard all the songs, seen documentaries and talked to many a Beatle addict. And while I have the utmost respect for what they did for modern popular music with their innovation, I have to agree to some extent with the following post:
You guys all know the music industry is mostly marketing, right? That alone should tell you the quality of the music and it's subjective effect on listeners really has no authority on it's staying or selling power. I listen to records by bands you've never heard of who I think make much better music than the Beatles ever did, and I worship those as much as someone would Sgt Pepper or Revolver etc. The Beatles are like the McDonald's of pop music; everyone knows who they are even if they only know a couple songs.
Now while I don't necessarily view it as negatively as stated above, I do have to agree that they were marketing geniuses but their music wasn't really anything special (in retrospect) Sure, when it came out it broke all new ground but all the prog bands that released albums less ten or so years later are more creative and interesting (IMOPO). You can argue that they paved the way for these prog bands, but that's like saying we should all stop what we are doing and worship the cavemen for their invention of the wheel; we have much better alternatives to stone cut wheels today. The Beatles just have a lot of pull behind them and are constantly advertised. I highly agree with "The sheeple buying anything that critics and MTV tell them to buy"; if you could go back in time and swap the Beatles out with someone else and they were just as heavily pushed, I can almost guarantee we'd be talking about some other band right now. If the Beatles WERE NOT as big as they are, and say they were at the level of a band like Camel, I guarantee people's opinions would be drastically different in regards to the songwriting of this band. All in all, I have massive respect for what they did for the music industry, I'm just not a die-hard fan like most. I will also tell you that Metallica sucks compared to most extreme metal, even though they technically gave it a boost but that doesn't mean they deserve blind worship when they are clearly terrible now; Slayer is even worse and they are amongst the top selling thrash metal bands of all time! The business sells you an image, and most people can't differentiate that form the music itself. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 12:01
I agree with you that the Beach Boys don't get enough credit, and I agree that the single mindedness with which many people rate the Beatles as the greatest band of all time goes a little far, but come on. They were hugely influential. It's hard to find one decent band that doesn't list them as an influence, and they (with the help of George Martin) did a lot to introduce more adventurous writing in pop music. Credit where credit is due. -------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 12:15
So what? And you don't find it boring that all these rock bands would be 'rooted' in blues rock while Beatles merrily experimented with sitars, piccolo trumpets and what not? If eclecticism is so despicable, may I ask what you are doing on a prog forum?
Oh, I see, hating pop on principle, take it elsewhere. Pop is Britney Spears and pop is also Stevie Wonder. Rock is The Who and rock is also Guns and (f****d up) Roses. Just because a band plays rock doesn't place it on a pedestal and just because another may slot in pop doesn't make it bad. And by the way, it is not unreasonable to call Pet Sounds pop, if you want to take this line of argument.
Why? Beatles cannot be evaluated without discussing their influence and importance.
Maybe but that doesn't warrant such an extreme reaction with little basis in fact.
Why so when Freak Out released only in '66?
Ermm, mind substantiating that? Your pronouncements aren't truth, you see, and even if you are only expressing your opinion, you should at least offer some arguments in support of it. Mere repetition is not enough.
Neatly combed hair and boyish looks don't make you a boyband. Perhaps, YOU can't get past Beatles's image and therefore would want to grudge them credit.
Are rock musicians so extraordinary and part of so hallowed a club that one must be deserving of being called such? Again, if AXL can be called a rock musician, I see no harm in calling either of the fab four such, they contributed a lot more to music.
Just your opinion and sans logic, comes across as incoherent rant.
And, er, what about the musicians? Are they all and in fact everybody on the planet, with the exclusion of a few privileged souls like Barking Weasel, deluded?
And Miles Davis is also much more interesting than your beloved Animals. What next, compare Beatles to Stravinsky or Bela Bartok to argue that they are overhyped?
Hold it right there. So a pop SINGER is, in your esteemed opinion, worthier than a band of musicians who could at least write their own music? Is there any semblance of reason left in this debate?
Dear me, so you have actually executed that which I proposed in sarcasm?  My dear, how ridiculous can you get? I don't believe anyone in their senses would actually consider Beatles a greater set of musicians than someone like Bach (though he might like their music, which is his preference and no more) and somebody who does is obviously a fanatic. One does not go attaching so much weight to such opinions that one pretends that Beatles were just a corporate pop act and disregards their profound influence on rock and pop music.
Same as above. There will always be fanboys and I will show you equally abominable fanboys of far less significant bands too. It doesn't mean anything and it doesn't mean anybody who so much as praises the Beatles's work is simply taken in by the hype. That is, to say the least, a very offensive suggestion.
Errrrrr......WHAT? 
They are in my considered opinion the most important group of ROCK musicians yet and I don't think people discuss Beatles in any context other than rock anyway. Through this thread, arguments have only been made for other bands that were important or to not overestimate Beatles's importance. No case has been made for any one group that was more important to rock than Beatles. Better? Maybe, but the most influential artists aren't always the ones who make the best music. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 12:16
Not one word in your post addresses or refutes what I said. Calm down. |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 12:20
|
No...they are so far ahead of all rock-era acts in cultural and musical importance and it's not even close.
But...it's still all entertainment folks. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 12:21
But Metallica were great once, at least w.r.t metal music per se. And so were Slayer. And what's more, they were ahead of the pack. Yeah, yeah, I know all about Welcome to Hell and I have given that example myself to put overenthusiastic Metallica fanboys in their place. But RTL and Haunting the Chapel were crucial releases in shaping extreme metal as we know it and that cannot be taken away from them regardless of what they are now. I think you grossly underestimate the importance of first-movers in music. It's all very well to carefully take stock of what the pioneers are doing and avoid their mistakes and pat yourself on the back for that but somebody has to take the first step. A band like Rigor Mortis will only ever be remembered as a band playing thrash metal, a genre that was shaped by bands like Metallica and Slayer. They will not be remembered for shaping anything. And thus you see derives Beatles's immense importance. We can discuss could-have-beens all day along, but as history stands, they were the ones, period. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: February 22 2011 at 12:34
It doesn't matter to me what critics think. Critics are extraordinarily poor at gauging quality, and also at predicting what will sell. Critics gave Justin Timberlake's "Justified" album four stars, and then went on to write syrupy, pandering, loathsome reviews which dubbed the Beastie Boys' "To The Five Boroughs" a masterwork. I could care less what William Mann thinks. Critics also gave Nirvana's "Nevermind" album three stars out of five when it first arrived, but now they regard it as one of the greatest albums ever recorded. They are ignorant of musical quality; the bottom line is money and chart hits. The Beatles had many chart hits and loads of money, so it makes perfect sense that the critics anoint them with bouquets of flowers, as if they were Roman soldiers home from war instead of overrated, peppy, annoying schlock minstrels. From a purely historical standpoint, the argument can be made that the Beatles were important to rock music, as artifacts of a unique cultural age. However, does that necessarily mean that they are still important, innovative, and exciting in the present era? Over half their catalog suffers from poor mastering, and is hardly listenable. Their early hits are practically indistinguishable from one another, and are far from memorable. "Abbey Road" and "Revolver" are hideously mastered, with searing and annoying vocal lines in songs like "Taxman." "Sargeant Pepper" contains some of the most trite songs I have ever heard in my life, such as "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds," and "When I'm Sixty-Four." I can't stand "Srgt Pepper." "Abbey Road" and "The White Album" are the only Beatles works I even have a mild respect for, although the "White Album" is also poorly mastered and "Abbey Road" is highly uneven. What most irritates me about the Beatles, however, are the vocal melodies. They are off-putting, dated, and honestly, the Beatles sound like a bunch of dorky guys trying to ingratiate themselves with the more cool, hip individuals surrounding them. The Beatles are an annoyance, at least from my standpoint. Thankfully, I was not alive in the 60's or early 70's. But from a strictly post-Beatles perspective, I think they are overrated and I am glad they called it a day back in 1970, instead of polluting the airwaves with further dreck like "Taxman." |