Do the Beatles get too much credit.. |
Post Reply | Page <1 678910 26> |
Author | |||
Floydman
Forum Groupie Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Bob Weir of the Grateful Dead "The Beatles were why we turned from a jug band into a rock 'n' roll band," said Bob Weir. "What we saw them doing was impossibly attractive. I couldn't think of anything else more worth doing" Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys "Upon first hearing Rubber Soul in December of 1965, Brian Wilson said, “I really wasn’t quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs…that somehow went together like no album ever made before". Roger McGuinn of the Byrds "As I said, we were influenced by The Beatles, and we wanted to be a band like that, and when I was working with Bobby Darin, and then in the Brill Building, my job was to listen to the radio, and emulate the songs that were out there. I had already been working on mixing The Beatles’ music with folk music in Greenwich Village, and I had noticed that they were using folk-influenced chords in their music. They used passing chords that were not common in rock’n’roll and pop songs of that time. I remember listening to them, and thinking that the Beatles were using folding chord construction. That comes from their skiffle roots, they will have learned those chords in their skiffle days, and just brought them into their own writing.” Pete Townshend of the Who "In a 1967 interview Pete Townshend of the Who commented "I think "Eleanor Rigby" was a very important musical move forward. It certainly inspired me to write and listen to things in that vein" Robert Fripp on hearing the Beatles Sgt Pepper Robert Fripp- "When I was 20, I worked at a hotel in a dance orchestra, playing weddings, bar-mitzvahs, dancing, cabaret. I drove home and I was also at college at the time. Then I put on the radio (Radio Luxemburg) and I heard this music. It was terrifying. I had no idea what it was. Then it kept going. Then there was this enormous whine note of strings. Then there was this colossal piano chord. I discovered later that I'd come in half-way through Sgt. Pepper, played continuously. My life was never the same again" Some of the reaction towards "Strawberry Fields Forever" "Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys said that "Strawberry Fields Forever" was partially responsible for the shelving of his group's legendary unfinished album, Smile. Wilson first heard the song on his car radio whilst driving, and was so affected that he had to stop and listen to it all the way through. He then remarked to his passenger that The Beatles had already reached the sound The Beach Boys had wanted to achieve. Paul Revere & The Raiders were among the most successful US groups during 1966 and 1967, having their own Dick Clark-produced television show, Where the Action Is. Mark Lindsay (singer/saxophonist) heard the song on the radio, bought it, and then listened to it at home with his producer at the time, Terry Melcher. When the song ended Lindsay said, "Now what the f**k are we gonna do?" later saying, "With that single, The Beatles raised the ante as to what a pop record should be" |
|||
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Online Points: 35781 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Can't listen to that now as I'm on a computer that I don't have the speakers connected to, but will be interested. Early on the conversation got sidetracked to "influence" (Floydman was talking about it at some length) when I wished to focus on claims of invention as well as innovation. I certainly had a somewhat lively discussion with Floydman early on in the thread, and while I may agree with much that he says, it's also rather at cross-purposes to the avenue of discussion I wished to explore, and think there was some misunderstanding of intent early on. I think the Beatles (with the help of certain people) were adept at adapting to their medium, but doubt many claims of origination. I think comments that I've heard such as The Beatles invented rock music, the Beatles came out with the first psych song, the Beatles were the first to incorporate Indian modalities into Western, or rock/pop, music, as well as comments I've heard about techniques they pioneered which were being used already (say in musique concrete) are over-the-top. And to hear that the Beatles deserve every ounce of credit they have ever been given (such as, say, Mr. X who claims that Ringo Starr invented the double-stick drumming technique) is a bit silly. They popularised a lot of things. There's nothing wrong with that. Composers/ musicians are influenced by others. Even if they are the most influential, pioneering and inventive musicians/composers/ band in the history of the universe, I would still think claims that I've heard in my years are weak. Of course they were hugely influential, and had a massive impact on music. Edited by Logan - February 28 2011 at 21:42 |
|||
Floydman
Forum Groupie Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I actually view "Tomorrow Never Knows" as the number one rock song in terms of innovation in the 60's. It basically predicts much of modern electronic music and pop music. With it's Automatic Double Tracking vocals, live looping techniques, processed leslie vocal effects, backward guitar breaks, ambient sounding looped effects, chorus effects and most off all that drum and bass sound right in your face and built on repetition. It was so ahead of it's time that bands like the Chemical Brothers were citing that oddness of house music was largely influenced by this track.
The Beatles deseve the credit they get. I don't think there is a rock band who gets more serious essays written about their music than the Beatles. I remember reading that Bernstein said the Beatles had this Schubert like flow of invention to their music. Or Bob Dylan saying the Beatles were doing things nobody was doing and he was talking about their harmonies and chord progressions. Now if that is not innovation or originality in terms of what came before the Beatles in rock and roll then what are we talking about? Let's look at some of the songs we are talking about.
Let's take a song like "Taxman". It's built upon a funky bass-line and the heavy use of the Hendrix chord. The concept is quite common in funk and hard rock. You think by the term the Hendrix chord you would think that Hendrix invented the chord. Well, of course Hendrix and the Beatles didn't invent the chord. But it's heavy use or highly distorted use of it on "Taxman" pre-dates Jim Hendrix own use of it on "Foxey Lady" by almost a year.
We know the Beatles used intentional amp guitar feedback with a guitar riff driven song on "I Feel Fine" I guess that wen't down well with the Kinks "I Need You" and Jimi Hendrix "Foxey Lady".
Then there is something like "A Day In the Life" with it's blending classical music sections and rock sections. But in between those sections the Beatles add a new twist Paul bridge section. Paul section not only adds a new singer, but a new song, a new rhythm and a entirely different outlook than what John was singing.
There are more examples.
I admit I love the Beatles but I was originally more into Pink Floyd but like someone else said I looked into the bands who influenced Pink Floyd. Syd Barrett constantly listened to Revolver and the other songs the Beatles were doing. There is a whole chapter about the Beatles influence on Pink Floyd in the book "Every Sound There is" The Beatles Revolver and the Transformation of Rock and Roll Edited by Russell Reising.
The most important thing is the Beatles were great songwriters who were very musical. I think some of the prog-heads here can't wrap their minds around that point of songwriting being more important than playing songs that were 10 minutes long that just ramble along with nothing to it. Edited by Floydman - February 28 2011 at 21:53 |
|||
Floydman
Forum Groupie Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I have to say whether the Beatles invented psychedelic rock really doesn't matter because that is very subjective. When the Byrds created "Eight Miles High" they weren't thinking about writing the psychedelic experience. They were just trying to write an Indian based song using rock instrumentation. The Beatles were already writing basically an early flower power song in the "The Word". But if you listen to one of the unreleased takes of "Norwegian Wood" the Beatles sound stoned and psychedelic. Though, IMO when they got to songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "I'm Only Sleeping" they were trying to capture on tape what the psychedelic experience was. I think "Tomorrow Never Knows" at least is one of the first full blown psych songs.
The Beatles weren't first rockers to use Indian influences but they may have been the first rockers to use non-blues modalities as far back as "Love Me Do" which is more folk like than blues. Certainly, "Norwegian Wood' sitar, three modal shifts alone is not based on blues modality. George Harrison was the first rock guitarist that I know of who was writing or playing sitar based songs and using the tamboura drones in rock songs. Anyone who listens to "Love You To" knows it truly based on Indian modal practice and instrumentation. 'Love You To" is far more truer to classical Indian music than what the Beatles did earlier on "Norwegian Wood" or the Byrds excellent "Eight Miles High".
What's important the Beatles were fundamental to the genre of psychedelic rock I don't think anyone thinks the Beatles invented musique concrete. I have never heard of it. I have read the Beatles and it's plain as can be that the Beatles were the first to use loops, and backward music to create psychedelic rock music in mind and eastern sonorities in mind on Revolver and "Rain". The backward guitar lines on "I'm Only Sleeping" and backward vocals were attempts in trying to create Indian sounds in their songs. Of course the loops created on 'Tomorrow Never Knows" and 'Strawberry Fields Forever" not only sound hallucinatory but they both frame the end of the their songs creating a real surreal effect. Pink Floyd did something similiar to this on the end of "Bike" which ends the song with sound collage coda. Look there are so many examples of the Beatles being very innovative it's almost an insult to them to be honest.
Edited by Floydman - February 28 2011 at 22:32 |
|||
40footwolf
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 08 2010 Status: Offline Points: 651 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Most of those are just talking about how much they liked the music. Nowhere in there did I read an account that Tommy and In the Court of the Crimson King would not have existed if Sgt. Pepper's never came out. Influenced by it? Certainly, but just as much so by Eastern philosophy and free jazz.
|
|||
Heaven's made a cesspool of us all.
|
|||
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Yes
|
|||
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: February 01 2011 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 13054 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
It wouId seem that Beatle-bias is so strong among some posters here, that not even direct quotes from great musicians matter. I had to chuckle when you made the comment "Most of those are just talking about how much they liked the music." I would suggest that Brian Wilson shelving the album "Smile", Bob Weir saying the Beatles turned The Dead into a rock 'n' roll band, Fripp saying "My life would never be the same again", and Townshend saying the Beatles "inspired him to write", were quite beyond merely "liking" the music.
The Beatles were at the forefront of a musical and societal revolution. To say their influence was not profound is merely latter-day revisionism. I watched the Beatles' first appearance on Ed Sullivan show as a 4 year-old (as did most viewers in the U.S.). To say that the nation was enthralled would not be an overstatement. The first song I learned to sing all the way through as a kid was "I Wanna Hold You Hand".
I followed the Beatles' progression from pop-rock band to folk-rock to psychedelia to avant-garde and prog with an excitement that would be hard to explain for folks who didn't grow up in that time. But one didn't need a disc jockey to tell you that the Beatles had released a new album, you knew instinctively (even as a 6,7 8, 9 year-old) when you heard it playing. And by the time I was old enough to start my own band, the fundamentals I had learned listening to the Beatles as I grew up impacted my playing immensely. I can only relate what I saw and heard from a personal standpoint, but it is evident that theses experiences were very similar and shared by millions of others in my generation.
No other rock band had that kind of influence, and really we are only talking about an epochal 6 year time period (1964-70), which makes their contribution even more phenomenal.
|
|||
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
|||
chopper
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 13 2005 Location: Essex, UK Status: Offline Points: 20030 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Excellent post and your last point about the 6 year period is very important - some bands take this long to make 1 album! Very few bands progress like The Beatles did (from effectively a boy/pop band making love songs like "She Loves You" to something like "A Day in the Life"). Can you imagine Take That doing the same thing?
You really had to be there to fully appreciate the impact that The Beatles had in their day.
|
|||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Beatles may have been the first to find a rock context for a lot of things but there's not much they could have INVENTED music composition wise, outside the region of Indo-Western fusion (and maybe there were jazzmen who got there before the Beatles, I don't know). Besides, well, amusing though it may sound as an example, Bollywood composers were approaching Western from the Indian side already in the 50s. Often, they ripped off Western melodies or instrumental sections direct but not all the time and some of these early attempts at fusion were far reaching. So, Beatles were at the most approaching it from the Western side, fitting Indian melody into Western arrangements but the possibility of Indian and Western music synthesis had already been explored in some sense. They may have been ahead of many, many others in studio craft though and there, the claims of invention may be more justifiable. It is not an aspect that I have looked into too much as a listener and maybe others have more details on whether Beatles used these recording techniques for the first time or somebody else beat them to it. I wouldn't doubt - and I don't think you do either - that they were, nevertheless, a highly innovative band and have few if any peers in the mainstream for innovation and creativity. But whether every innovation credited to them is justified and was there really nobody else who had beat them to the punch is debatable. Again, that they popularized a lot of innovative compositional aspects and influenced many, many musicians to follow their lead is not in doubt and nor have you questioned it anyway. |
|||
AllP0werToSlaves
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 29 2009 Status: Offline Points: 249 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
^That's really the brass tacks as far as I'm concerned. I was approaching it from the media/marketing angle before only because most people who rave about The Beatles breaking new ground tend to not take that into consideration. Never meant to raise a ruckus in this thread with my claims, just offering a different perspective on the debate! Great discussion though, I learned quite a bit from the vets in this thread!
Great post rogerhat
|
|||
|
|||
40footwolf
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 08 2010 Status: Offline Points: 651 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I love how every time I say "I like the Beatles, I think they were fantastic and highly influential, I just wish a lot of the bands around them got the credit they deserve" everyone's responses is "OMG WHY DO U HATE THE BEATLES".
So, fine. You win, I lose, the Beatles invented music all by themselves. Whatever.
Edited by 40footwolf - March 01 2011 at 19:06 |
|||
Heaven's made a cesspool of us all.
|
|||
JeanFrame
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 01 2010 Location: London, England Status: Offline Points: 195 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Some staggering comments in these posts. I'm glad to know that some of the contributors are simply being 'provocative', though I still don't approve of that kind of negativity either. This is, after all, meant to be a serious discussion forum, not an amusement park.
There's no question that The Beatles were the single most importance force in the music we listen to today, especially in relation to progressive rock and the development from sixties music to seventies invention. At the same time, I would have to say that the Beatles had plenty of influences of their own, some of whom aren't given sufficient credit. Many parts of the fabled Sergeant Pepper album were riddled with straight takes from the Syd Barrett songbook. The central section of 'A Day in the Life' is pure Syd, almost a direct quote in some places. But there would be no discussion here at all, and no such forum, if the Beatles had not existed. |
|||
hobocamp
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 17 2010 Location: Fine Furniture Status: Offline Points: 525 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Edited by hobocamp - March 03 2011 at 09:46 |
|||
moshkito
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 17509 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Hi,
That's a tough call, really ...
They should get credit for helping bust the radio monopolies, but they should also get credit for creating antoher monopoly ... that is, in the end, just as evil as the first one that they busted up.
In the end, it was money that killed it all, and the "credit" was just an excuse to help the publicity machines. Sort of like Deep Throat ... the more another priest, or church, that was stupid enough to say anything, the more it sold! And the more attention it got! And it had another side effect ... it was one of the first videos to hit the market and sell millions!
The Beatles came up at a time when things were already changing around them, and they become a part of that movement ... and anyone that denies these "changes" in perceptions, the arts, and has never kept up with Film, Theater, Arts, Literature ... they are just rock press writers. They wouldn't know art from the stains in their shorts!
In that sense, The Beatles do not need credit for something that was already there, but they should help for breaking the "stereotype" in pop music ... and guess what ... look at the commercial crap today ... they are still pushing the "hits" as they were in those days, and in most cases ... we buy it ... we even find ways to write about it with some progressive something or other! ... rap is next ... and no one everheard rap the first time in a movie in 1968, right next to Mick Jagger in a movie ... and it's still ignored! Edited by moshkito - March 03 2011 at 13:56 |
|||
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|||
Floydman
Forum Groupie Joined: November 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
"A Day in the Life" has nothing to do with Syd Barrettl and the track was completed before Pink Floyd started recording
Pipers At The Gates Of Dawn Recording of the album began on 21 February 1967. "A Day in the Life" is built from three different fragments and the Paul section was from a different song that the Beatles decided to put in the bridge. The Beatles had been using that technique on songs like "We Can Work It Out" and "She Said Said" with the latter using a psychedelic bridge. If you read this book "Every Sound There Is: The Beatles' Revolver and the Transformation of Rock and Roll Russell Reising" there is a whole chapter on the Beatles influence on Pink Floyd. Syd was constantly listening to Revolver when it came out. Song like "See Emily Play" for one was influenced by the Beatles "Strawberry Fields Forever"
|
|||
Guests
Forum Guest Group |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Q: When did Paul McCartney write "Silly Love Songs"
A: 1962-2005
|
|||
JeanFrame
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 01 2010 Location: London, England Status: Offline Points: 195 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Impressive detail in your post, so you obviously know what you’re talking about it terms of the recording dates etc, but in fact, the two albums were almost recorded simultaneously, in the same building. So the influences (if any) had already happened prior to that (or perhaps the Pink Floyd sound rang through the Beatles corridors in a smoke break?). It’s a well-attested fact that the Beatles, and Paul McCartney in particular, visited the UFO club regularly to see Pink Floyd in performance. There’s little doubt that John Lennon’s vocal mannerism in ‘I’d like to turn....you....on’ is pure Pink Floyd/Barrett territory. The section immediately following ‘somebody spoke and I went into a dream’ with those descending chord sequences of a circle of fifths is almost certainly Barrett influenced, not the other way round. Though as if to counter my own proposition, an interesting point you make is that Barrett himself was influenced by the Beatles in the first place. I can see the possibilities in that argument – the Beatles perhaps subconsciously re-filtering their own original influence – an intriguing thought! The other thing to say is that any influence there is doesn't apply particularly to the songwriting, it mainly applies to the arrangement. The whole tone of the 'Sergeant Pepper' album is UFO territory, though imbued with that wonderful gift of songwriting that was so unique to the Beatles. |
|||
earlyprog
Collaborator Neo / PSIKE / Heavy Teams Joined: March 05 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 2133 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
"Syd was constantly listening to Revolver when it came out. "
Thanks for the info. This supports my claim that "Yellow Submarine" was the inspirational source for Barrett's silly, childish psychedelic songs; The Beatles get too little credit.
|
|||
Phideaux
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 27 2007 Status: Offline Points: 378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
All hail the mothership. We speak as one mind, we live as one source, we hear as one ear (but in stereo!)
|
|||
giselle
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 18 2011 Location: Hertford Status: Offline Points: 466 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
It's not a case of credit, there wouldn't be any such thing as a rock group of any kind if it wasn't for the beatles. The only judgements you can make are to pretend they were only one of many such groups which is what people today seem to do. No perspective of history whatsoever.
|
|||
Post Reply | Page <1 678910 26> |
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 |