Do the Beatles get too much credit..

Of course there are cases where there is sufficient reason and historical record to say that one musician/composer/band did something before another musician/composer/band, for instance in utilising some technology or technique. I used the example of tape looping which I have heard credited to The Beatles as the originators. Aside from any wrongness in itself in giving such credit, one is failing to give credit to others. It was adapted for The Beatles and certain techniques were popularised by The Beatles using them. That does not mean that The Beatles are not significant to it, but ideally the right amount of credit is given and attributed to those it is due.

From https://www.destroyallcircuits.com/blogs/news/the-art-and-evolution-of-tape-looping-from-musique-concrete-to-digital-frontiers

The story of tape looping begins in the late 1940s, amidst the burgeoning movement of musique concrète. Pierre Schaeffer, working in the studios of French radio, discovered that by creating closed loops of recorded sound on phonograph discs, he could produce repetitive patterns that transcended traditional musical structures. This revelation laid the groundwork for what would soon become tape looping. As magnetic tape became more readily available in the 1950s, composers like Karlheinz Stockhausen seized upon its potential. Stockhausen's groundbreaking work "Gesang der Jünglinge" (1955-1956) utilized tape loops to blend recorded voices with electronic sounds, creating a spatial and temporal complexity previously unheard in music. This marked the beginning of tape's reign as the premier medium for sonic experimentation. The Swinging Sixties: Loops Hit the Mainstream The 1960s saw tape looping transition from avant-garde studios to popular music, largely thanks to its adoption by The Beatles. Songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" (1966) and the epic sound collage "Revolution 9" (1968) brought the technique into millions of homes worldwide. The Beatles' experiments, influenced by the avant-garde work of Yoko Ono and others, demonstrated tape looping's potential for creating otherworldly soundscapes within the context of popular music. Concurrently, minimalist composers like Terry Riley and Steve Reich were exploring the hypnotic potential of tape loops. Reich's "It's Gonna Rain" (1965) and "Come Out" (1966) used phase shifting techniques with tape loops to create complex, evolving patterns from simple sources. These works would prove hugely influential, shaping the development of both art music and popular electronic genres for decades to come.

Edited by Logan - 1 hour 24 minutes ago at 23:34

Tracing originality in music is near nigh impossible. Music has never evolved because someone thought up something that no one had previously done. Usually it is just a subtle rearrangement that happens and sometimes a band can be 'found out' in this way. The Beatles were very clever and great song writers, they exploited technology thanks mainly to George Martin and this represented an evolution. They weren't as 'out of the box' as many bands or artists in terms of actual originality (thinking Zappa especially) yet they still changed the lives of a great many musicians in a real way going forward who could now see that art based music could have mass appeal and could 'sell'.

Edited by richardh - 3 hours 24 minutes ago at 21:34

Logan wrote: ... Anyway, it would be nice to have more topics that elicit a "this makes me so happy" than a "kinda sad" response. And I know just the man for the job.

Logan wrote:   Somewhere in this thread I think I listed some claims made by people that seem very suss to me. That the Beatles invented heavy metal music, a claim I have seen multiple times, well I don't know how true that is.

Edited by Cristi - 16 hours 39 minutes ago at 08:19

^ When I made this poll I was thinking specifically about claims of origination and innovation. Not all credit is deserved. Some of the credit that The Beatles get, or has received, is BS, or unfounded; therefore, I don't think that The Beatles deserve all the credit that has been given to them. I am very happy to see credit given where it is due.

EDIT for a tangential note: Taylor Swift is another worldwide pop phenomenon whom I would doubt deserves all the credit and accolades that she has been given. How much credit the Beatles should be given for her music and success, I don't know, but of course The Beatles has had a profound effect on music/ has been very influential.

Edited by Logan - November 26 2024 at 12:02

Valdez wrote: Every bit of credit The Beatles have ever gotten is well deserved.  Theres a reason the whole planet went mad over them. They certainly had the magic.

I really disagree because I have seen/heard very dubious claims about The Beatles, and I just don't trust the accuracy of people when it comes to what all people would give credit for (people make mistakes, don't know the full history). Not only have I heard that the Beatles invented raga rock, but that it invented raga. I also have heard The Beatles credited with inventing what is known as musique concrete even though they did not, but popularised it by taking that into their own music. Somewhere in this thread I think I listed some claims made by people that seem very suss to me. That the Beatles invented heavy metal music, a claim I have seen multiple times, well I don't know how true that is.

It would be incredible to me if not even one person ever gave undue credit to The Beatles (I framed this particularly in terms of innovation and origination, and not all the the planet goes mad for experimentation, innovation and origination). Actually, depending on what one means by the whole planet went mad for them, well if that means everyone loved them, that would not be true. My dad loathed The Beatles, but then I guess you could say he went mad about them in his own way by getting mad at them.

That and Lord Mountbatten are the two things I would remember him talking about the most that he absolutely hated (my dad was a British officer in India during partition). Later he was in corrections and setting up rehabilitation units, and he blamed The Beatles, I think, overmuch for drug abuse. I think he may have given The Beatles too much credit for leading people to drug abuse.

One thing we call all agree at least, The Beatles did invent rock and roll. ;) Okay maybe not. Hair metal? Perhaps. I came from the perspective that if one can find/ has heard even one claim from one person crediting The Beatles with something that there is insufficient evidence for, or is just plain wrong, then The Beatles have been given too much credit including on the claim that the Beatles are worthy of all credit that has been given to them. As said, I also think the Beatles does not get enough credit by some. Good, magic, that's subjective, but it makes sense to look to specific claims about The Beatles that are stated as fact, such as The Beatles invented such-and-such.

Edited by Logan - November 26 2024 at 10:23

Although I answered Yes, I do agree with that, and had the question been, "Do the Beatles get too little credit?", I also would have answered yes. The band gets too much credit from some (including some who have claimed that The Beatles deserve all the credit they can get), and not enough credit from others. It seems likely that on average it (the band) does fall more on the side of too little credit these days. The influence and effect that The Beatles had on music is incredible, especially considering its fairly short run. Hearing "A Day In The Life" alone has been very influential, including to Robert Fripp. And without The Beatles, there would have been no The Rutles.





Funnily enough, I listen to The Rutles and sing their songs more than The Beatles.

Starshiper wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: Starshiper wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: I would imagine that as gazillionaires that their credit is golden with platinum cards up the wazoo! Sorrowfully, John Lennon's golden credit turned into lead. Yeah but Yoko still went shopping! Too bad she couldn't buy a better singing style Well, one could argue that shopping is a perfectly legitimate pastime, especially when one is negotiating the vagaries of fame and creativity. Even avant-garde artists need to pick up essentials—be it a new pair of shoes or perhaps some paint with which to create their next opus. As for the dig about her singing style, well, let's just say art is in the eye of the beholder. What one person interprets as an unpolished vocal delivery another may find profoundly touching. For instance, The Shaggs' "Philosophy of the World" was praised by Kurt Cobain; "Trout Mask Replica" is a well-regarded record by many; Damo Suzuki's free-flowing vocals embellished some of the 1970s’ most open-minded rock music, et cetera. Ono's innovative musical style has been both celebrated and panned, but it certainly pushes the envelope. Maybe instead of hoping she had "bought" a different sound, we should celebrate the fact that she's game to buck a world that usually clings to its comfort zones. Rather than criticise Yoko Ono for her shopping sprees or vocal deliverance, let's applaud her singular contributions to art and culture. After all, if we were to be bound by conventional notions of talent and conduct, from where would progress arise? So, the next time you hear of someone engaging in a bit of shopping therapy—or some experimentation with the voice—just know they may well be standing at the threshold of greatness.

Starshiper wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: I would imagine that as gazillionaires that their credit is golden with platinum cards up the wazoo! Sorrowfully, John Lennon's golden credit turned into lead.

siLLy puPPy wrote: I would imagine that as gazillionaires that their credit is golden with platinum cards up the wazoo!

Sorrowfully, John Lennon's golden credit turned into lead.