The Beatles, superficial or fantastic ?

ivan_2068 wrote: If I learned something during my life is that evolution or change is a process that can’t be stopped, determined persons are only the trigger that fire the change, but evolution is going to happen anyway. Probably without The Beatles this change would have been different but musicians were already developing new tendencies. The feeling of musical rebellion against adults was there in the youth of the 60’s there’s no way anybody could have stopped them. The Beatles were so exclusive that no other band had the chance or the need to develop but without them somebody had to take their place, other musicians would have been forced to take more risks and dare to impulse that change. History is made by people but everything is a process, WWI would have been declared even if Archduke Francisco would not have been killed in Sarajevo, the nationalist and anti Semitic feeling in Germany would had caused a WWII even without Hitler, of course the development would had been different, but the feeling was there, at it would have exploded anyway. I believe The Beatles are influential because they were there and did it, but nobody can stop the change, somebody would have taken their place. As someone said this is speculative, but it’s also speculative to affirm that rock wouldn’t change without them. Iván

Can't argue your point Ivan, the Beatles were the catalyst which began a change, but not the only musical evolution, look to Elvis for example, a huge influence for many Blues Rockers such as Zeppelin! I love when I get to mention Zeppelin.

But as I said, Dylan influenced the Beatles best work, so is Dylan not equally important?

Edited by Rob The Plant

Robert Graves once said something like, 'Shakespeare is actually a very good poet, despite everybody saying he is'. The Beatles are actually a very good group despite their popularity. Abbey Road contains sequenced tracks, extended tracks, synthesizer, harmonies, English accents, strong lyrics and continuously innovative drumming. It's one of my favourite albums. Shame it was their last, because it points to a promising future which they never enjoyed. 

The Stones weren't as complexe, but more energetic on stage. Lennon could have been a Dylan-like figure from the very start, and could've had worked with Cohen or Joplin.

That would've been sweet - figure it out for yourself

"Probably because Bob Dylan is so much better than them"
i hope it's a joke, especially for a prog's fan
The beatles are at the genesis of progressive music
bands like PF are followers of the beatles works.
They are among the first to experiment acid, to include oriental instruments in western music and to add classical/orchestral influences to rock music.
Thay have influenced many prog bands.
Listen to "Number9" and the double white album.
that's pure experimental.

Their early stuff is freakin aweful, but they developed into a great band, especially once they met Bob Dylan. Probably because Bob Dylan is so much better than them.

ivan_2068 wrote: Aqualung28 wrote: The Beatles are excellent.  Without them we wouldn't have anything, even Metal (Helter Skelter, before someone says otherwise) I always heard this and I can't deny they were influencial, but I believe this is not necesarilly true. If The Beatles never would have existed, somebody else would have taken their place, another band would have influenced the rest or maybe many bands would have replaced that influence, but music had to evolve and Rock was the most explosive force of music even before them. Maybe the evolution would have been different, faster or slower, but rock had to change and grow with or without The Beatles, nobody could stop it. Iván

The easy answer to that is, Ivan, that the Beatles DID.

Your argument is like saying that if Mozart or Beethoven hadn't existed, then somebody else would have taken their place - or that if you didn't exist then somebody else would take your place.

I for one am not sure how much truth there is in that, but I'm as certain as I can be of the truth of the easy answer!

Rock'n'Roll was an explosive force in music - but so was Beethoven. People couldn't believe the monstrous cacophony his music produced - some actually complained! Beethoven's evolution of music from Classical to Romantic remained a titanic shadow over composers right up until the 20th Century, when the 1st World War seemed to stimulate a complete breakdown of old forms.

Other styles of popular music took the world by storm too - the Charleston in the "Roaring twenties", the Big Bands during the 2nd World War, Jazz...

But "Beatlemania" was an insanity - I'm sure everyone is familiar with stories of the band being unable to hear what they were playing at gigs because of the fans screaming. John Lennon was absolutely correct with his outrageously controversial statement about being bigger than Jesus at the time - in the context that the Beatles albums sold more units than the Bible.

The Beatles' music itself remains a benchmark - and the albums released over such a short period of time reveal a level of consistent improvement in quality of songwriting, arrangement,  production and influence that has never been matched by any band. In history, I would suggest that only Mozart's output is more staggering in terms of quantity, quality and influence over a given timeframe.

So the short answer to the original question is that they were and still are fantastic.

As far as superficiality is concerned, it must be remembered that the Beatles were not just great songwriters, they really worked on their public image too, with a flawless marketing strategy and brand awareness (if you'll excuse the "Business-ese"). So yes, they had a deliberate and crafted level of superficiality too, in order to maintain and grow their mass appeal.

Most bands today seem to concentrate more on the latter than the former, sadly

That's why I listen to prog rock - where the music matters most

 

Aqualung28 wrote:

The Beatles are excellent.  Without them we wouldn't have anything, even Metal (Helter Skelter, before someone says otherwise)

I always heard this and I can't deny they were influencial, but I believe this is not necesarilly true.

If The Beatles never would have existed, somebody else would have taken their place, another band would have influenced the rest or maybe many bands would have replaced that influence, but music had to evolve and Rock was the most explosive force of music even before them.

Maybe the evolution would have been different, faster or slower, but rock had to change and grow with or without The Beatles, nobody could stop it.

Iván

Theyre good, great even in an evolution/history of music type of way. Get Revolver or magical mystery tour, or if your into the sixties psychadelia stuff (syd barret fans) get sgt.peppers. otherwise i find them mediocre at best (yes even the white album, it has some really good tunes but as an album it doesnt flow at all, its almost like george/paul/john were in a competition on it) and abbey road is great, just not my cup of tea.

Hi Everybody.

Beatles are my number one group. Both, the "Early Beatles" and the "Studio Years Beatles" I love too much !!!

I think that if they not existed, the progressive music will not existed too, or it will be very different.

They made the perfection in 3 minutes songs. It's amazing! Think about it...

Best Greetings...

Jaap:

Well, as usual one has to look at this from two sides.  First, there is The Beatles' music.  Second, there is The Beatles' influence.

Re music, I happen to love all of it: from Love Me Do to Her Majesty.  Sure, the later stuff was more "mature," and thus more "acceptable" to snooty progheads like us...  However, even She Loves You was way ahead of its time compositionally, and especially harmonically.

Re influence, there is simply no argument.  If we assume that among the earliest prog albums were PF's Piper, The Moody's Future Passed, and KC's In the Court, one need only keep in mind that all three were influenced by Sgt. Pepper: the Moody's stated as much, as did Fripp (in an obvious moment of graciousness...).  Even PF reluctantly, begrudgingly admitted that Pepper influenced Piper (a nice alliteration, no?).

Personally, I believe that The Beatles were already "proto-prog" by Revolver (particularly Love To You, She Said She Said and especially Tomorrow Never Knows).  Pepper cemented that, and then "Strawberry Fields" and "I Am the Walrus" (and, as KE9 notes, a couple of tracks on Yellow Submarine, including Only a Northern Song and It's All Too Much) made it as clear as day.

It is also important to keep in mind, as Billy Shears notes, that The Beatles and George Martin were doing things production-wise that were so far ahead of their time as to be almost frightening - with very little equipment.  Consider that Sgt. Pepper was created on two four-track machines, which Martin "split" to create what amounted to the first 16-track album.  Add to this the effects they were using (e.g., audience sounds) and new, if not unique, studio tricks (e.g., tape loops, backward solos, etc.), and one can readily understand why Pepper holds such a unique, critical and historic place in rock, and in its influence on prog.

Peace.