Do the Beatles get too much credit..

Barking Weasel wrote: 6) Come to think of it, if you factor in the abysmal state of the modern recording industry, perhaps I was wrong all along.  The Beatles deserve ALL of the credit they get...just look at the modern USA, and our so-called "music industry" with its focus on image, posturing, and marketing in the guise of Kei$ha and Eminem.  That could very well be the Beatles legacy right there, in a nutshell.  If you Beatles fans would like me to give the Beatles credit for the music industry of today as it stands...toxic and broken...then by all means, take it!

Do you have any conception of what popular music was like in the early 1960s? An artist would have a hit single and then the record company would throw them into the studio to cut an album full of covers. Motown records, the epicenter of hundreds of hits, based its franchise writing the right material for singers; it was one band of session musicians who cut the hits that came out of Motown. Session musicians. The artists that became famous rarely wrote their own material but were merely singers. For bands that could play instruments, covers were the name of the game; after Elvis is became extremely marketable to feature these young bands covering the likes of Chuck Berry, Little Richards, James Brown, etc. Hell even legends like Ray Charles were obligated to pump out albums filled with cover tunes. A lot of the stuff we know and remember today from this period we remember for good reason, for being fantastic music (Elvis, Buddy Holly, Johnny Cash, Ritchie Valens, The Temptations, etc. etc.). But then again there was some god awful music back then too. The same can really be said for any generation of music.


However what is important, the industry back then fed on the recordings of cover tunes.
Here's a list of debuts from a few notables in the early 60s


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dylan_%28album%29

(1962) Bob Dylan: Only 2 original Dylan pieces, a number of traditional pieces


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Please_Please_Me

(1963) Please Please Me: 8 Lennon/McCartney originals


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_%28album%29

(1964) The Rolling Stones: Only 1 original on the album



By the Beatles' third British release Help! every song was an original. On the other hand, the Stones were still working with primarily cover material. While Dylan wrote the majority of his material on his second album Freewheelin', this was essentially a folk album.  He was kicking out original acoustic material for his next couple albums until in 1965 Dylan was influenced to go electric by the Beatles. Not only did the Beatles influence the biggest and most legitimately self made folk artist to change his game but it demonstrated a full break from artists having to go through the motions with record companies.

Together Dylan and The Beatles ingrained the concept of original songwriting into rock. Little Richard, Chuck Berry and others laid the foundation for rock and roll by writing fantastic songs. But honestly, figures like Dylan and the Beatles changed the way the game was played. While there certainly would have been a change in popular music, the fact remains that Dylan and the Beatles changed the very environment, the very meaning of being a popular musician, the very standards in which an individual's own work and creativity become central. One cannot deny this. They were the second generation which allowed rock to become at once popular yet incredibly dynamic, creative, and challenging. The 60s were Dylan and they were the Beatles; without these guys, who knows how long it would have taken for rock to evolve into what it became by the end of the decade.




Here are a few debut releases from '65 and thereafter.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Generation_%28album%29

(1965) My Generation: 9 of the 12 songs of originals


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Airplane_Takes_Off

(1966) Jefferson Airplane Takes Off: 8 of 11 originals


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_You_Experienced

(1967) Are You Experienced?: 10 of 11 originals


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doors_%28album%29

(1967) The Doors: 9 of 11 originals



And this is just to cite a few. Even a blues based band like Cream (a first album with a number of classic blues covers mixed with a number of originals) released a second album of fully original material in Disraeli Gears. Clearly to make it after the Beatles one had to a) write original material and b) play an instrument/sing. This wasn't always the case in the music industry; popular artists were not always self contained beasts of their own. Rock and roll attained a level of maturity after Dylan and the Beatles. by the late 60s even Motown was promoting original material as Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye emerged as formidable song writers and collaborators.

After it became clear musicians could play and write their own music, their was an explosion of creativity that could not be controlled. In their wake, the Beatles encouraged creativity, ingenuity, self-expression, and the like. Sadly, many of these traits are indicative of underground bands these days and I don't think you can blame the Beatles at all for the state of the music industry today. A lot has happened in the last 39 years, much has changed in the business but the important thing is The Beatles made it possible for musicians to be viable far beyond the time and place in which their music was recorded.

There is a reason why people don't remember cover bands.

Barking Weasel, have you actually checked out those Howard Goodall audio-essays?  Or do you apprehend that on doing so, the house of cards that is your ant-Beatles propaganda will collapse in a trice?  

Dean wrote: rogerthat wrote: Barking Weasel, have you actually checked out those Howard Goodall audio-essays?  Or do you apprehend that on doing so, the house of cards that is your ant-Beatles propaganda will collapse in a trice?   Dean, one point that was not satisfactorily explained to me - or perhaps was outside the scope of the discussion - in those videos was the role of jazz.  Maybe Goodall is more interested in classical music and in Beatles's use of classical compositional techniques in a rock/pop context, I am just firing blank darts because I don't know anything about Goodall. But jazz opened up interesting harmonic possibilities and arguably demonstrated before the Beatles came along that you did not necessarily have to turn the conventional melody-harmony system upside down and there was still fertile ground waiting to be explored.  Even jazz began to go avant garde by and by but that phase was almost contemporaneous to the Beatles anyway.  Anyway, a very interesting series of videos and very lucidly explained by Goodall, thanks for posting.  It depends on what kind of Jazz you're referring to. In the late 50s 4 working class lads in Liverpool would not have been exposed to a huge amount of "high-brow" Jazz, though they would have known a lot of popular Jazz from film and radio. Certainly they were interested in the Beat Generation (as their name indicates), but there isn't much evidence I could find regarding their use of Jazz. Looking through Allan W. Pollack's extensive song analysis there aren't that many Jazz references ("Gershwinesque Jazz/Blues hybrid ", "a jazz-like stream of triads", "continual stream of syncopation against the steady four-in-the-bar jazz beat of the accompaniment").       (As well as being a classical composer of choral works, Goodall wrote the theme tunes to Red Dwarf and Black Adder)

^If you could ask Lennon he would  have probably said that Elvis was his greatest influence.

Edited by Snow Dog - April 23 2011 at 03:31

rogerthat wrote: No, I also don't think there's much high brow jazz influence in their music. Possibly, I just missed it because their music is an ocean of diverse influences. But my point was more regarding the preface with which Goodall opened his talk.  I think jazz to a great extent was already reinforcing the idea that there were fertile pastures left to explore through more conventional means and without getting too far outside the boundaries of tonal music.  Although, your explanation does account for why Beatles as a band may have bypassed that chapter and gone straight for classical composers.

The Beatles interest in classical comes directly from George Martin, who was a producer (and composer) of classical recordings before he produced The Beatles. There is one anedotal reference where Martin said that this piece could do with an oboe, "Which one's that?" said a Beatle, so he played them a classical piece featuring oboe

Dean wrote: Innovation does not mean invention, it means to renew or change, so to answer your OP accurately, even I, who doesn't particularily enjoy listening to them so can't be a Beatles fanatic, can recognise that "No" is a valid answer since while the Beatles didn't "invent" all those things they did renew and change them to such an extent to actually make a difference.

rogerthat wrote: Dean wrote: Innovation does not mean invention, it means to renew or change, so to answer your OP accurately, even I, who doesn't particularily enjoy listening to them so can't be a Beatles fanatic, can recognise that "No" is a valid answer since while the Beatles didn't "invent" all those things they did renew and change them to such an extent to actually make a difference. Curiously enough, even I admire them purely as composers. As Goodall demonstrated, Penny Lane, for just one example, is such a great composition. But somehow, as a listening experience, their work isn't at the top of my favourites, barring Abbey Road.  I guess I desire some more energy and verve in their rendering. Unfortunately, two of the most amazing composers in rock/pop music did not always do adequate justice to their own compositions.

In any case, some of the most adventurous and experimental bands have not had particularly great or appealing vocals, so you are literally clutching at straws now.  

Barking Weasel wrote: rogerthat wrote: In any case, some of the most adventurous and experimental bands have not had particularly great or appealing vocals, so you are literally clutching at straws now.   When I listen to an "experimental" band, I don't necessarily expect wonderful vocals.  I expect music that I can puff  to if I have the inclination to do so.  I love Can, but I will also be the first to claim that Damo Suzuki's outlandish vocals are not the greatest or most accessible.  However, his singing is unique in that it is NOT at the forefront of the music, like it so often is with the Beatles or the Rolling Stones.  Just listen to an album like "Tago Mago," where the compositions meander without vocals for large stretches.  Compare that to "Sergeant Pepper," where the singing is constant and inescapable throughout the entire record. When I listen to a pop/rock group like the Beatles, I expect great vocals because that is clearly the focus of what a typical rock band is trying to accomplish within the confines of normal song structures.  The voice becomes the most important aspect of their sound, since it is at the forefront of songs like "A Hard Day's Night" or "Let It Be."  However, like I said before, I come away disappointed with the Beatles very prominent and noticeable vocal sound.  Just a matter of taste.

Barking Weasel wrote: All that the word "cosmopolitan" indicates is that they were worldly and international, a term that perfectly describes the Beatles.  The way I used the word was extremely accurate, in that the Beatles traveled to India and used multicultural influences in their music.  Holly did NOT utilize those influences in his music, therefore, he is not cosmopolitan!