The Beatles, superficial or fantastic ?

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

We should limit this thread to popular/rock music and leave out the jazz and classical realms out of this context. I am not so sure that if the Beatles (from Rubber Soul on) had not been there, the other bands (be they Beach Boys or Stones or Yardbirds) would've managed to make things advance/evolve the same way, if at all. The fact that my parents and grandparents (and not only mine) spoke highly of the Beatles as artists "even though they looked like dirty hippies" proves to me that only them could be accepted widely even by much older people. My grandfather was a conservative judge (the other an engineer) but could see the evolution of their music and personna. Only the Beatles aura could manage that. Never could've the Stones or B Boys even come close to that.

The only other figure who are as Historically Musically Important (in "pop"terms) is Dylan ( he propmpted the Byrds and the whole folk and country rock thing) but stopped IMHO being relevant in the mid-70's and is almost redundant now (thanks to a much tooooo long career). The Beatles were lucky enough to stop when they did because they would've soon or later made mistakes or redundant stuff and a longer career would've eroded that aura.

Hendrix is another genius but he picked up from both as well as Motown.

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

Up to 'Help' - a boy band

After 'Help' - pure genius - they wrote the book, everyone else just read it.

you cannot overestimate the Beatles contribution to popular music of all stripes

Ivan, think on this.

The Beatles directly led to Ringo Starr's movie and solo music career.

Genesis led directly to Phil Collins' movie and solo music career.

In terms of drummers going solo, the Fabs win hands down.

I hate the Beatles.Utter drivel to my ears.

However they were incredibly influencial and as Cert says, you can't just presume that rock music would have evolved the same way without them.For that we owe them our gratitude and respect.

In the book:

Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture
by Edward L. Macan

the author is under the opinion that sociological aspects of the early progressive movements including the early age influence of the musicians in England were to develop the R&B or Rock and Roll backbeat out of the United States with the harmonies of Classical music and Hymns from the Anglican Church.  In his opinion the Beatles were the first to do that.  That is why Pink Floyd, The Moody Blues and Genesis, among many otheres, claim the Beatles as a major influence. This is a great read and really allows some great theories as to why prog music started and why it happened in the particular areas it did to unfold.  I think it may even be the best theory.

maani wrote: Jaap: Actually, if Piper was PF's first album, and it was influenced by Pepper (by their own admission), how can you talk about things PF did before Pepper?  Unless you are talking about live stuff, or studio demos.  But then, as noted, The Beatles had already started on the proto-prog road with stuff on Revolver.  And one could (if they tried really hard) make that case that even a track or two on Rubber Soul is proto-prog, thus bringing us back to late 65 early 66. As for Zappa, he was working on an entirely different set of influences, including avant-garde jazz and neo-neo-classical (Varese, Stockhausen et al).  Sure, he was listening to The Beatles and other, too, but that was only a part of a much larger "world" of music for him.

I never said that Pink Floyd was'nt inspired by the Beatles, (they were the most influential band in pop-music and in addition they're my all-time favo's) I just said Sgt.Pepper was the figurehead of progressive rock from the 1960's and the whole thing they did before (like Revolver) was the biggest inspiration to prog artists and bands from around 1967. I'll never play down the influence of Sgt.Pepper - it was and still is a brilliant album - but some people seemed to think it came out from nowhere and suddenly introduced progressive rock, in my opinion the album was a peak in the Beatles' career (and music history) which was based on the developments they made before. The "proto-prog" road they were driving during the Revolver and Rubber Soul years were a part of that development towards Sgt.Pepper.  

Among other things, they started the tradition of sprawling, self-indulgent double albums.

Seriously, though, the Beatles are classic like Elvis is classic. Nobody else captured the attention of the world and propelled the "cause of rock and roll" like they did. If they hadn't happened, would someone else have taken their place? Really hard to say...it doesn't seem like they had close competition during the height of their popularity. I don't think anybody else was as well placed to convince the world to take rock music a little more seriously.

I agree with Ivan- the times were more important than the specific people, but on the other hand it was the specific people who made history after all. The Beatles were more right for more people than anybody else at the time, due to all the elements coming together. George Martin and Brian Epstein had a lot to do with that, giving the band a master of studio experimentation on one side and a talented and obsessed promoter and manager on the other.

Honestly, I don't listen to them much. But I don't really need to; most of their songs are burned into my brain. That's pretty fantastic all by itself. If they were truly superficial the music would be mostly forgotten by now.