Do the Beatles get too much credit.. |
Post Reply | Page <1 24252627> |
Author | |||
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)
|
||
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 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)
|
||
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 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)
|
||
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. |
|||
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. |
|||
|
|||
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 |
|||
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 |
|||
thellama73
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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.
|
|||
|
|||
Floydman
Forum Groupie Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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. Edited by Floydman - August 28 2010 at 21:28 |
|||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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. Edited by rogerthat - August 28 2010 at 20:55 |
|||
Icarium
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: March 21 2008 Location: Tigerstaden Status: Offline Points: 34055 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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...,
|
|||
|
|||
caretaker
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 19 2010 Location: united states Status: Offline Points: 288 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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.
|
|||
Chris S
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 09 2004 Location: Front Range Status: Offline Points: 7028 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
, I ain't gonna read it.Too much negative energy..LOL
|
|||
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
|||
Chris S
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 09 2004 Location: Front Range Status: Offline Points: 7028 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
^^^ 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..... Edited by Chris S - August 28 2010 at 17:43 |
|||
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
|||
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 35809 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
UndercoverBoy
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 10 2009 Location: Tulsa, OK, U.S. Status: Offline Points: 5148 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 35809 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
This article is for you then, "The Beatles are the most creative band of all time": http://www.starcrost.com/entertainment/beatles.php |
|||
Chris S
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 09 2004 Location: Front Range Status: Offline Points: 7028 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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] |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1 24252627> |
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 |