Do the Beatles get too much credit.. |
Post Reply | Page <1234 28> |
Author | |||
Floydman
Forum Groupie Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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 Edited by Floydman - August 28 2010 at 22:20 |
|||
Floydman
Forum Groupie Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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". Edited by Floydman - August 28 2010 at 21:57 |
|||
thellama73
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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. |
|||
|
|||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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. |
|||
Floydman
Forum Groupie Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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 |
|||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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)
|
||
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)
|
||
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)
|
||
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)
|
||
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)
|
||
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 |
|||
Chris S
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 09 2004 Location: Front Range Status: Offline Points: 7028 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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] |
|||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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)
|
||
^ yeah forgot about Jeff Buckley.
|
|||
...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)
|
||
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 |
|||
resurrection
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 08 2010 Location: London Status: Offline Points: 254 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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.
|
|||
Weirdamigo
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 28 2010 Location: Serbia Status: Offline Points: 181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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.
|
|||
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 22 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 16130 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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!
|
|||
VanVanVan
Prog Reviewer Joined: October 08 2009 Status: Offline Points: 756 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Absolutely not. They deserve every bit of credit they get and then some.
|
|||
"The meaning of life is to give life meaning."-Arjen Lucassen
|
|||
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 35886 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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 |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1234 28> |
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 |