Give the Beatles their due

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Like I said Im tired of you youngsters around here not giving the Beatles the credit and respect they deserve. I doubt many of you realise just how much they changed not only music but society.


Joseph C. Morin
University of Maryland Baltimore County
Department of Music
Fine Arts Building
1000 Hilltop Circle Road
Baltimore, MD 21250

Summer 2003
MUSC 336: The Beatles: Career, Music, Culture, Innovation, Impact



BEATLES: Cursory Summary of Some of their Significant Influences and Precedents

Social/Cultural

- caused cultural (as well as musical) upheaval
- made RnR central to youth's lives
- globalize RnR to extent previously unknown
- appearance: most visibly, introduce fashion of long hair through "Beatle haircut" (made obligatory)
- attitude: make it fashionable to be cute, smart, irreverent, eclectic, chic, cultured etc.

- fostered through personal appearances in which musical act now are non-threatening in earlier tradition of EPresley, JLLewis, LRichard; (but are "threatening" to youth in their seductive, influential nature)
- fostered through movies: Hard Day's Night and Help, which allowed fans an "up-close-and-personal" view of Beatles, with appeal of movies e.g. (1) bringing "beach-genre" movies to close, (2) causing creation of spin-off group "Monkees", (3) inspiring future folk-rocker Roger McGuinn to purchase Rickenbacker 12- string guitar just like one seen in movie, etc.

- overall, Beatles convey attitude: "Be yourself, don't let anybody tell you how to run your life"
- success lifts UK out of lingering post-WW2 doldrums, helps to redefine UK (ironic in that UK authority/press reject US RnR from beginning)
- help to reshape RnR into "Rock": music that is capable of introducing serious social issues into the mainstream and though that becomes more than mere commercial entertainment (as is Pop)

Musical

- renders much of existing USA RnR (esp Rockabilly, Phil. Mach., doo wop, pre-Motown girl groups, etc) out of style during initial introduction in 1964
- intense appeal of music revives bland/stultified pop market, success set up environment for British Invasion
- lay foundation for "arena rock," with their 1965 performance in Shea Stadium (NYC) entertaining 55,000 fans, demonstrating their intense appeal
- Beatles helped set in motion a maturation process for RnR, ultimately ending with their contribution for establishing "Rock" by proving that RnR could be conduit for significant message re culture/society: in process they expanded to embrace topics and musical style formerly excluded from RnR genre
- expansion in full bloom on Revolver '66: "Taxman"--protest about rapacious taxation by UK govt, "Eleanor Rigby"-- reflecting on emptiness of life and religious ritual, melody set to string quartet (no trad. rock insts), "Love To You"-- introduction of subcontinent Indian musical style (raga) and instruments (tabla and sitar), "Tomorrow Never Knows"-- Lennon advocation for opening one's mind to new experience, exploiting technical innovations (see technical)
- music sets new artistic and commercial standards for future RnR (the "yardstick" by which every group will be measure in '60s and into '70s)
- sets trend for bands establishing and maintaining artistic control over their music:
- inaugurate era of "self-contained" band (inspiring thousands to pick up guitars and imitate them)
- help to reestablish trend that artists compose songs for themselves: bands now expected (by fans) to create own material; redirects song-writing trend away from centralized, production-line, professional song-writing concept indicative of Brill Bldg
- set trend for bands to record their music themselves
- in all, establishing many aspects of "DIY" trend, which becomes measure of authority
- accorded credit for creating new style of album with Sgt Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band: "concept album," in which songs can be seen to relate to one central topic or idea
- helps establish "album" rather than "single" as industry standard
- seen as pushing Beatle creativity into realm of classical music: Pepper's songs now contain stylistic diversity and artistic sophistication to be considered equivalent to Romantic "art-song" and album equivalent to Romantic "song cycle" by Schubert, Schumann, Wolf, etc
- seen as early pioneers of music video with promotional film for "SFF", also sections of HDN
- said to start (but re-introduce) concept of double A-side single


Music Technology/Creative Process

- begin to create exclusively in studio (retire from touring in 12/66)
- first successful band to do so, set trend for future bands
- pioneer new techniques to maintain creative/innovative musical style
- begin to rely on creativity of studio technicians/producer:

- E.g. ADT (artificial double tracking ["flanging"]) created to ease problematic vocal double-tracking process for JLennon, comes into wide-spread use on instruments in future albums
- E.g. Lennon's request that G Martin combine two "uncombinable" versions of "Strawberry Fields Forever"
- E.g. subjecting voices, instruments to unusual electronic modifications (limiters, etc) to produce sophisticated, inimitable "sound"

- explore innovative, avant-garde techniques (formerly unused in RnR)

- E.g. musique concrete--modification of sound through unconventional techniques: tape loops used in "Tomorrow..", steam calliope 'wash' used to help create circus atmosphere in "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite"
- E.g. Aleatoric approach toward creating orchestral crescendos in "Day In A Life"
- E.g. avant-garde influence in "Revolution No. 9"

- experimentation is so pervasive that nearly every subsequent technique used in Rock can be traced to precedent in Beatles music
- first significant group to achieve "verticality" in business through Apple Corp. (i.e controlling all significant aspects of their business (from songwriting to recording to movies etc. through an in-house/self-contained entity)

You people take all this stuff for granted. We were blown away when we heard thus stuff the first time. Nobody else was doing it yet.


No one, not even George Martin, who helped create their music, can articulate what is so special about the Beatles. Nor is it easy to explain why their mystique continues to grow, recruiting new fans with each generation. Perhaps the timeless fascination with the Beatles and their music defies explanation, but a few factors do shed some light on the group's lasting appeal.

# The Beatles redefined the parameters of rock and roll music and demonstrated that its possibilities were limitless. Once albums like "Rubber Soul," "Revolver," and "Sgt. Pepper" conquered the charts it was clear that rock and roll could be just about anything that anyone wanted it to be. The Beatles may have been partially shaped by Elvis Presley, Little Richard and Chuck Berry, but they did not confine themselves to that early form of teen rock and roll for very long. As those pioneers had captured the frivolous teenage spirit of the fifties, the Beatles bent and shaped their music to match the mood of '60s youth, which had moved from the malt shop and teen hop to the more dangerous battlefields of sit-ins and political demonstrations.

# The Beatles revolutionized studio recording methods, proving that there was no sound, mood or effect that could not be achieved if all possibilities were explored. Today, many of those innovations are taken for granted, but the Beatles had to imagine or invent them on the fly. "We didn't have any magic or electronic boxes to plug into," their engineer Geoff Emerick points out. "We had to make it all mechanically ourselves. Most of the gadgets you can buy today are just based on the things we used to do mechanically. The artificial double tracking and the flanging and all that sort of stuff." The Beatles added their own experimental innovations, including endless tape loops that combined multiple layers of sound, backward effects, and the introduction of instruments like the sitar, the mellotron and the synthesizer. They did not hesitate to bring any instrument or musician into their sessions, whether it was a lone horn player, a string quartet, or a full symphony orchestra. After the Beatles, the only limitations were those of imagination, creativity and effort. The Beatles even managed to break the long-standing three-minute time limit rule that had applied to virtually all previous hit singles by clocking in with the 7:11 "Hey Jude." And, along the way, they invented the modern outdoor stadium concert.

# The Beatles seldom, if ever, repeated themselves. Unlike many rock and roll singers who preceded them, they did not attempt to continually recycle the sound or "formula" of their first hit over and over, a mindless strategy that was followed by far too many artists and producers in the '50s and early '60s, and which spawned a legion of one-hit wonders. Each new Beatles record, particularly after their first two albums, showed significant creative growth.

# The Beatles "died young" by calling it quits while still at their peak. They didn't dwindle down to a second- or third-rate act. Despite 25 years of solo work, they are still frozen in that 1960s image, the top group in the world with lots of remaining potential, albeit unrealized - enough to fuel decades of "what ifs."

# The Beatles' music has been made more special by the group's lasting breakup. When they closed shop at Abbey Road in 1970, it was really for good. There was no reunion album, no reunion concert, no one-off charity gig. When Lennon died in 1980, all chance of a real reunion died too. Fans may enjoy "Free As A Bird," but the Beatles can never really come together again. That leaves a finite body of work comprising 13 albums and 22 singles that represent all of the real music the Beatles ever produced together for public consumption. The "Anthology" packages of outtakes, demos, and home recordings lends insight into the creation of that music, but does not really enhance it. That finite status adds a special preciousness to the Beatles' music.

Why the Beatles? (http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/wiener.htm)


A Beatles' Odyssey (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml)

Beatles as musical experimentalists, The (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4026/is_200304/ai_n9202278)

[Csargo]

Indeed. :yes:

[Reverend Joe]

:inquisitive: Do you have a naked picture of John Lennon inn your room?

It's a matter of taste.

And anyway, just because most musical experts are obsessed with the Beatles, it does not make them great. It just makes them well-lauded. And so was Michael Jackson *shudder*.

[Bijo]

A post of excellence, Gawain.

[Bijo]

And anyway, just because most musical experts are obsessed with the Beatles, it does not make them great. It just makes them well-lauded. And so was Michael Jackson *shudder*.
In essence you are correct, but then let us throw that away and look at it with our own eyes and skills. As a knower and doer of music -- and just things that are art-like -- I can tell you with certainty they have been truly great.

[Reverend Joe]

In essence you are correct, but then let us throw that away and look at it with our own eyes and skills. As a knower and doer of music -- and just things that are art-like -- I can tell you with certainty they have been truly great.
Yes, they were good. But I DO NOT CARE. I DO NOT LIKE THEM.

Frankly, I always feel as though the Establishment and the Man are ordering me to love the Beatles; and the "experts" just make it worse. And being as antiauthoritarian as I am, this causes me to dislike the Beatles. Of course, I didn't really like them to begin with, but this makes it a lot worse.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, they were good. But I DO NOT CARE. I DO NOT LIKE THEM.

No they were far from good. You can not like them . As you say thats a matter of taste. But not to recognize their contributions to music and society is just stuburness. You dont have to like something to see that someone is talented. I dont like Ballet for instance. But that does not make Ballerinas any less talented.

Give them their due, Thats all I ask. You dont have to like them.


Frankly, I always feel as though the Establishment and the Man are ordering me to love the Beatles; and the "experts" just make it worse. And being as antiauthoritarian as I am, this causes me to dislike the Beatles. Of course, I didn't really like them to begin with, but this makes it a lot worse.

Thats because your wondering whats wrong with you. :laugh4: Again no nobody says you have to like them. Just look at what I posted. All that music you love came about through their influence.

[Bijo]

Actually, I rephrase my previous statement: in essence you were partially correct. If you don't like them then that is okay, but denying their greatness is plain incorrect. But you have just admitted their greatness (or actually goodness) -- this is good.


EDIT: what Gawain said.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But you have just admitted their greatness -- this is good.

Good is not great. Where did he say they were great?

[Bijo]

Good is not great. Where did he say they were great?
Heh heh, we're posting simultaneously. It was already edited, and editen again. You were correct in saying he didn't say they were great (damn, it's late in here :)

[Csargo]

Yes, they were good. But I DO NOT CARE. I DO NOT LIKE THEM.

Frankly, I always feel as though the Establishment and the Man are ordering me to love the Beatles; and the "experts" just make it worse. And being as antiauthoritarian as I am, this causes me to dislike the Beatles. Of course, I didn't really like them to begin with, but this makes it a lot worse.

Truly a sad statement.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Truly a sad statement.

Yes, but he hits the nail on the head. :smash:

[Csargo]

Yes, but he hits the nail on the head. :smash:

Not liking the Beatles because of the man yeah...

[Reverend Joe]

Again, I find that the vast majority of the pints stated in your article are either purely opinion or detrimental to music and society as a whole.

For example:


Social/Cultural

- appearance: most visibly, introduce fashion of long hair through "Beatle haircut" (made obligatory)
- attitude: make it fashionable to be cute, smart, irreverent, eclectic, chic, cultured etc.


I despise most people like this. And I have very short hair (I cut it with a 3/8" comb.)


- overall, Beatles convey attitude: "Be yourself, don't let anybody tell you how to run your life"

The Beatniks started this, and they were most responsible for spreading it as a phenomenon, not the Beatles.


- renders much of existing USA RnR (esp Rockabilly, Phil. Mach., doo wop, pre-Motown girl groups, etc) out of style during initial introduction in 1964
- intense appeal of music revives bland/stultified pop market, success set up environment for British Invasion
- lay foundation for "arena rock," with their 1965 performance in Shea Stadium (NYC) entertaining 55,000 fans, demonstrating their intense appeal

None of this could possibly considered "good", especially the loss of rockabilly; in fact, it could be said that Creedence reversed the damage done by the Beatles. As for the psychedelic movement, I would argue it was more fueled by the effects of LSD and marijuana upon the Rock/Rockabilly culture and the general "outsider" culture than any Beatles music.


- Beatles helped set in motion a maturation process for RnR, ultimately ending with their contribution for establishing "Rock" by proving that RnR could be conduit for significant message re culture/society: in process they expanded to embrace topics and musical style formerly excluded from RnR genre
- expansion in full bloom on Revolver '66: "Taxman"--protest about rapacious taxation by UK govt, "Eleanor Rigby"-- reflecting on emptiness of life and religious ritual, melody set to string quartet (no trad. rock insts), "Love To You"-- introduction of subcontinent Indian musical style (raga) and instruments (tabla and sitar), "Tomorrow Never Knows"-- Lennon advocation for opening one's mind to new experience, exploiting technical innovations (see technical)

This already existed as far back as Woody Gutherie, not to mention the slave spirituals; it would have appeared anyway, regardless of the Beatles.


sets trend for bands establishing and maintaining artistic control over their music:
- inaugurate era of "self-contained" band (inspiring thousands to pick up guitars and imitate them)
- help to reestablish trend that artists compose songs for themselves: bands now expected (by fans) to create own material; redirects song-writing trend away from centralized, production-line, professional song-writing concept indicative of Brill Bldg
- set trend for bands to record their music themselves
- in all, establishing many aspects of "DIY" trend, which becomes measure of authority

First actual positive point I have seen so far. However, many, if not most, of my favorite artists did not write their own material, and I think it is foolish to think that artists should create all original material. Again, look at Creedence:
an excellent band, but much of their best material (Suzy Q, Ninety nine and a Half, Midnight Special, The Night Time is the Right Time, Heard It Through the Grapevine) was not original.


- seen as pushing Beatle creativity into realm of classical music: Pepper's songs now contain stylistic diversity and artistic sophistication to be considered equivalent to Romantic "art-song" and album equivalent to Romantic "song cycle" by Schubert, Schumann, Wolf, etc

An incredibly pompous attempt to inflate the Beatles to proportions to which they are undeserving.


- seen as early pioneers of music video with promotional film for "SFF", also sections of HDN

Music videos were the worst thing to ever happen to music.


- begin to create exclusively in studio (retire from touring in 12/66)
- first successful band to do so, set trend for future bands
- pioneer new techniques to maintain creative/innovative musical style
- begin to rely on creativity of studio technicians/producer:

I stand corrected. THIS was the worst thing to ever happen to music. When musicians began to rely on artificiality and studio sound, music took a turn for the worse.

I cannot, and will not, go on, because I am much to drunk and contentious to contribute anything further. but rest assured: I have my reasons for disliking the Beatles.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And yes I know sales dont count but look at this


The Beatles record sales, worldwide charts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The following is a list of The Beatles' record sales and worldwide chart figures:



Record sales

* During the week of April 4, 1964 The Beatles occupied the first five slots of the Billboard Hot 100, #1 - "Can't Buy Me Love," #2 - "Twist and Shout," #3 - "She Loves You," #4 - "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and #5 - "Please Please Me," the only group in rock and roll history to achieve this feat. That same week they also had another seven charting records in the Hot 100: "I Saw Her Standing There", 31; "From Me to You", 41; "Do You Want to Know a Secret?", 46; "All My Loving", 58; "You Can't Do That", 65; "Roll Over Beethoven", 68. The Beatles had twelve songs on the charts that week, a feat never matched before or since.

* In 1964, the Beatles had the never-matched total of 15 American million-selling records (9 singles and 6 LPs), representing US sales of over 25 million in 1964 alone.

* "I Want To Hold Your Hand" sold nearly 5 million records in the US by 1968, making it the best selling single of the 1960s (from a Capitol Records Press release, September 9, 1968).

* When "Can’t Buy Me Love" was released in the US on March 16, 1964, it sold 940,225 copies on the first day, shattering all previous sales records. The single went on to sell over 3 million by the end of the year (Spizer, Bruce, 2000: The Beatles’ Story on Capitol Records, Part One: Beatlemania & The Singles, p. 36).

* The motion picture soundtrack "A Hard Day’s Night" sold 1 million copies in the first four days of its US release making it one of the fastest selling LPs of the 1960s (Billboard article, July 11, 1964).

* By August 1964, the Beatles had sold approximately 80 million records globally (Variety 235, August 12, 1964).

* By February 1965, their global sales had moved beyond 100 million records (Variety 237, February 3, 1965).

* Rubber Soul sold 1.2 million copies in the US during the first 9 days of its release (Billboard article, January 1, 1966).

* By August 1966, the Beatles had sold 150 million records worldwide (Variety 243, August 3, 1966).

* By May 1967, the Beatles’ global gross stood at $98 million (Variety 246, May 19, 1967).

* The "Hey Jude" single had sold over 3 million copies in America in its first 2 months of release, and 3.7 million by mid-January 1969. It eventually sold over 4 million copies and was the fourth best-selling single of the 1960s (Spizer, Bruce, 2003: The Beatles on Apple Records, p. 32).

* Although it carried a list price of $11.79, their double album The Beatles sold 1.1 million units during its first two weeks on sale; a record for any double album up to that point in time (Spizer, Bruce, 2003: The Beatles on Apple Records, p. 102).

* "Abbey Road" sold over 3 million copies in the US in a little over a month, making it one of the best-selling LPs of the 1960s despite having been on sale for only the last three months of the decade (Spizer, Bruce, 2003: The Beatles on Apple Records, p. 164).

* According to the Guinness Book of Records, the Beatles had topped worldwide sales of 300 million units by 1969.

* The "Let It Be" LP reportedly shipped 3.2 million copies in 13 days representing a gross retail value of nearly $26 million (Billboard article, June 6, 1970).

* By October 1972, the Beatles’ worldwide sales total stood at 545 million units.



It should be noted that the UWC only has charts available from 1966-1967, 1976-1977, 1986-1987, and 1996-present. [3]][4][5][6]

Britain

* Most no. 1 albums in the British albums charts (15 no. 1s).
o Please Please Me (1963, 30 weeks), With the Beatles (1963, 21 weeks), A Hard Day's Night (1964, 21 weeks), Beatles for Sale (1964, 10 weeks), Help! (1965, 9 weeks), Rubber Soul (1965, 9 weeks), Revolver (1966, 7 weeks), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967, 27 weeks), The Beatles (The White Album) (1968, 8 weeks), Abbey Road (1969, 17 weeks), Let It Be (1970, 3 weeks), The Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl (1977, 1 week), Live at the BBC (1994, 1 week), Anthology 2 (1996, 1 week), 1 (2000, 9 weeks)
* Group with most no. 1 hits in the British singles chart (17 no. 1 hits).
o "From Me to You" (1963, 7 weeks), "She Loves You" (1963, 6 weeks), "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (1963, 5 weeks), "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964, 3 weeks), "A Hard Day's Night" (1964, 3 weeks), "I Feel Fine" (1964, 5 weeks), "Ticket to Ride" (1965, 3 weeks), "Help!" (1965, 3 weeks), "We Can Work It Out"/"Day Tripper" (1965, 5 weeks), "Paperback Writer" (1966, 2 weeks), "Yellow Submarine"/"Eleanor Rigby" (1966, 4 weeks), "All You Need Is Love" (1967, 3 weeks), "Hello, Goodbye" (1967, 7 weeks), "Lady Madonna" (1968, 2 weeks), "Hey Jude" (1968, 2 weeks), "Get Back" (1969, 6 weeks), "The Ballad of John and Yoko" (1969, 3 weeks)
* Group with most weeks in the British singles chart (456 weeks).
* Group with most weeks at no. 1 in the British singles chart (69 weeks).
* Group with most top 10 hits in the British singles chart (28 top 10 hits).
o "Please Please Me" (1963, #2), "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever" (1967, #2), Magical Mystery Tour EP (1967, #2), "Something"/"Come Together" (1969, #4), "Let It Be" (1970, #2), "Yesterday" (1976, #8), "The Beatles Movie Medley" (1982, #10), "Love Me Do" [re-entry] (1982, #4), "Baby It's You" (1995, #7), "Free as a Bird" (1995, #2), "Real Love" (1996, #4)
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the British albums chart (174 weeks at no. 1).
* Most consecutive weeks spent at no. 1 in the UK albums chart (51 weeks from May 11, 1963 to May 2, 1964 – this excludes soundtrack albums).
* Most consecutive no. 1 hits in the British singles chart (11 consecutive no. 1 hits, excludes re-issues of old singles).
* Most consecutive top 5 hits in the British singles chart (22 consecutive top 5 hits from 1963 to 1970).
* Most complete ever domination of the British charts by occupying the first two positions in the singles chart and the albums chart as well as the top 3 positions in the EP chart (Extended Play) from December 12 to December 26, 1963.
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the British albums chart within a calendar year (40 weeks at no. 1, 1964).
* Most no. 1 albums in the British albums chart within a calendar year (3 no. 1 albums, 1965).
* Most simultaneous weeks at no. 1 in the British singles and albums chart (45 weeks).
* First act to replace itself at the no. 1 position in the British singles charts (December 12, 1963).
* First act to replace itself at the no. 1 position in the British albums chart (December 7, 1963).
* The Beatles’ Please Please Me album spent more weeks at no. 1 in the British album charts than any other album by a group (30 weeks at no. 1, this excludes albums by duos and soundtracks).
* Most debuts at no. 1 in the British albums chart (8 no. 1 debuts, record shared with David Bowie)
* Group with the most consecutive weeks inside the British singles chart (105 consecutive weeks, from October 11, 1962 to October 15, 1964).
* Group with most single hits charted in the British singles chart simultaneously (6 hits on April 17, 1976).
* Biggest ever jump within the British albums chart (94 positions jumped by Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band from no. 97 to no. 3 in 1987).
* Most consecutive weeks inside the top 10 of the British albums chart (171 consecutive weeks from 1963 to 1966).

[edit] America

* Most no. 1 singles in the Billboard Hot 100 charts (20 no.1s).
o "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (1964, 7 weeks), "She Loves You" (1964, 2 weeks), "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964, 5 weeks), "Love Me Do" (1964, 1 week), "A Hard Day's Night" (1964, 2 weeks), "I Feel Fine" (1964, 3 weeks), "Eight Days a Week" (1965, 2 weeks), "Ticket to Ride" (1965, 1 week), "Help!" (1965, 3 weeks), "Yesterday" (1965, 4 weeks), "We Can Work It Out" (1965, 3 weeks), "Paperback Writer" (1966, 2 weeks), "Penny Lane" (1967, 1 week), "All You Need Is Love" (1967, 1 week), "Hello, Goodbye" (1967, 3 weeks), "Hey Jude" (1968, 9 weeks), "Get Back" (1969, 5 weeks), "Come Together"/"Something" (1969, 1 week), "Let It Be" (1970, 2 weeks), "The Long and Winding Road" (1970, 2 weeks)
* Most no. 1 albums in the Billboard Top 200 albums charts (19 no.1 albums).
o Meet the Beatles! (1964, 11 weeks), The Beatles' Second Album (1964, 5 weeks), A Hard Day's Night (1964, 14 weeks), Beatles '65 (1965, 9 weeks), Beatles VI (1965, 6 weeks), Help! (1965, 9 weeks), Rubber Soul (1965, 6 weeks), Yesterday...and Today (1966, 5 weeks), Revolver (1966, 6 weeks), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967, 15 weeks), Magical Mystery Tour (1967, 8 weeks), The Beatles (The White Album) (1969, 9 weeks), Abbey Road (1969, 11 weeks), Let It Be (1970, 4 weeks), 1967-1970 (The Blue Album) (1973, 1 week), Anthology 1 (1995, 3 weeks), Anthology 2 (1996, 1 week), Anthology 3 (1996, 1 week), 1 (2000, 8 weeks)
* Most 2-sided charted singles in the Billboard Hot 100 charts (26 singles, including two double-sided #1 hits, although "For You Blue" (B-side of "The Long And Winding Road") accompanied its A-side and did not chart on its own)
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the Billboard albums chart (132 weeks at no. 1).
* Group with most weeks in the Billboard albums chart (2,184 weeks, second only to Frank Sinatra with 2,211 weeks).
* Group with most weeks in the Billboard Hot 100 chart (609 weeks).
* Group with most weeks at no. 1 in the Billboard Hot 100 chart (59 weeks at no. 1).
* Most songs inside the Billboard Hot 100 at the same time (14 songs on April 11, 1964).
* Most songs inside the Billboard Top 40 at the same time (7 songs on April 11 and 25, 1964).
* Most songs in the Billboard Top 10 at the same time (5 songs on April 4, 1964).
* Most songs in the Billboard Top 5 at the same time (5 songs on April 4, 1964).
* Most chart entries in the Billboard Hot 100 within a calendar year (30 charted songs in 1964)
* The only group to replace themselves at no. 1 in the Billboard Hot 100 twice (March 21 and April 4, 1964). It would be forty years later when Usher would tie the record.
* Most complete ever domination of the Billboard Hot 100 singles and albums chart by occupying the first 5 positions in the Hot 100 as well as the first two in the albums chart simultaneously (April 4, 1964).
* Most consecutive no. 1 albums in the Billboard albums chart (8 consecutive no. 1 albums from 1965 to 1968).
* Most consecutive top 5 albums in the Billboard albums chart (16 consecutive top 5 albums from 1965 to 1977).
* Group with the longest span of no. 1 albums in the Billboard albums chart (36 years and 51 weeks, 1964 to 2001).
* Group with most consecutive no. 1 hits in the Billboard Hot 100 (6 consecutive no. 1 hits, record shared with the Bee Gees).
* Most no. 1 albums in the Billboard albums chart in a calendar year (3 no. 1 albums in 1964, repeated in 1965 and 1966).
* Most no. 1 singles in the Billboard Hot 100 in a calendar year (6 no. 1 singles in 1964)
* The only act to have held the no. 1 and no. 2 position in the Billboard albums chart for 9 straight weeks on two separate occasions (March 2 to April 27 and August 29 to October 24, 1964).
* Most top 3 albums in the Billboard albums chart (27 top 3 albums).
* Most transatlantic no. 1 hit singles (13 songs reached no. 1 in both the U.S. and Britain).
o "She Loves You," "I Want to Hold Your Hand," "Can't Buy Me Love," "A Hard Day's Night," "I Feel Fine," "Ticket to Ride," "Help!," "We Can Work It Out," "Paperback Writer," "All You Need Is Love," "Hello, Goodbye," "Hey Jude," "Get Back"
* Group with most consecutive top 5 hits in the Billboard Hot 100 chart (17 consecutive top 5 hits from 1964 to 1969).
* Group with most consecutive top 10 hits in the Billboard Hot 100 chart (24 consecutive top 10 hits from 1964 to 1976).
* Group with most consecutive top 20 hits in the Billboard Hot 100 chart (27 consecutive top 20 hits from 1964 to 1976).
* On April 4, 1964, the Beatles occupied the first 5 positions in the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, the top 2 in the Billboard albums chart, the no. 1 position in the British singles chart, the first two positions in the British albums chart and the no. 1 position in the British EP chart, making this the most complete ever domination of the British and American charts in history.
* Most no. 1 singles in the Cash Box Top 100 charts (22 no.1s).
* Most no. 1 albums in the Cash Box albums charts (15 no.1 albums).
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the Cash Box albums chart (127 weeks at no. 1).
* Group with most weeks in the Cash Box albums chart (722 weeks up to 1974).
* Group with most weeks in the Cash Box singles chart (601 weeks up to 1986).
* Group with most weeks in the Record World albums chart (849 weeks up to 1982).
* Group with most weeks in the Record World singles chart (520 weeks up to 1980).
* Most no. 1 singles in the Record World Top 100 charts (23 no.1s).
* Most no. 1 albums in the Record World albums charts (17 no.1 albums).
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the Record World albums chart (123 weeks at no. 1).

[edit] Other countries

* Most no. 1 hits in the German singles chart (12 no. 1s).
o "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (1964), "Paperback Writer" (1966), "Yellow Submarine"/"Eleanor Rigby" (1966), "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever" (1967), "All You Need Is Love" (1967), "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" (1969), "Get Back" (1969), "The Ballad of John and Yoko" (1969), "Something"/"Come Together" (1969), "Let It Be" (1970)
* Most no. 1 hits in the Australian singles chart (23 no. 1s).
o "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (1963), "I Saw Her Standing There" (1964), All My Loving EP (1964), "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964), "A Hard Day's Night" (1964), "I Should Have Known Better" (1964), "I Feel Fine" (1964), "Rock and Roll Music" (1965), "Ticket to Ride" (1965), "Help!" (1965), "Day Tripper"/"We Can Work It Out" (1965), "Nowhere Man" (1966), "Yellow Submarine"/"Eleanor Rigby" (1966), "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever" (1967), "All You Need Is Love" (1967), "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Lady Madonna" (1968), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" (1969), "Get Back" (1969), "The Ballad of John and Yoko" (1969), "Something"/"Come Together" (1969), "Let It Be" (1970) [7]
* Most no. 1 hits in the Dutch singles chart (21 no. 1s).
o "I Want to Hold Your Hand' (1964), "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964), Long Tall Sally EP (1964), "A Hard Day's Night" (1964), "I Should Have Known Better" (1964), "I Feel Fine" (1964), "Rock and Roll Music" (1965), "Ticket to Ride" (1965), "Help!" (1965), "Yesterday" (1965), "We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper" (1965), "Michelle" (1966), "Paperback Writer" (1966), "Yellow Submarine"/"Eleanor Rigby" (1966), "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever" (1967), "All You Need Is Love" (1967), "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Get Back" (1969), "The Ballad of John and Yoko" (1969), "Let It Be" (1970)
* Most no. 1 hits in the Swedish singles chart (18 no. 1s).
* Most no. 1 hits in the Canadian singles chart (22 no. 1s, CHUM chart).
* Most no. 1 hits in the Norwegian singles chart (21 no. 1s).
* Most hits in the German singles chart within a calendar year (16 hits, 1964).
* Most consecutive top 10 hits in the German singles chart (17, from 1965 to 1970).
* Most no. 1 hits in the German singles chart within a calendar year (4 no. 1 hits in 1969, record shared with ABBA).
* Group with most top 10 hits in the German singles chart (29 top 10 hits).
* Group with most weeks in the German singles chart (589 weeks).
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the German albums chart (113 weeks at no. 1).
* Group with most weeks in the German albums chart (1,180 weeks up to 2000).
* Group with most no. 1 albums in the German albums chart (11 no. 1 albums).
* The double album The Beatles/1962-1966 spent more weeks in the German album charts top 10 than any other artist album (124 weeks, only beaten by soundtracks My Fair Lady and West Side Story).
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the German albums chart within a calendar year (36 weeks at no. 1 in 1964, excludes soundtracks).
* Group with most albums in the German albums chart within a calendar year (6 albums in 1964).
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the Dutch singles chart (67 weeks at no. 1).
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the Dutch singles chart within a calendar year (29 weeks, 1965).
* Most top 10 hits in the Dutch singles chart (35 top 10 hits).
* Most consecutive no. 1 hits in the Dutch singles chart (6 consecutive no. 1 hits).
* Group with most weeks in the Dutch singles chart (523 weeks).
* Only act to debut at no. 1 in the Dutch singles chart (3 times).
* Most no. 1 albums in the Norwegian albums chart (12 no. 1 albums).
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the Norwegian singles chart (97 weeks at no. 1).
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the Norwegian albums chart (182 weeks at no. 1).
* With The Beatles spent more weeks at no. 1 in the Norwegian albums chart than any other artist album (31 weeks at no. 1, second only to soundtrack The Sound of Music).
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the Norwegian singles chart within a calendar year (25 weeks at no. 1 in 1966).
* Most weeks at no. 1 in the Norwegian albums chart within a calendar year (48 weeks at no. 1 in 1964).
* Most consecutive no. 1 singles in the Norwegian singles chart (8 consecutive no. 1 singles from 1965 to 1967).
* Most hit singles within a calendar year in the Norwegian singles chart (10 hit singles in 1964).
* Most no. 1 hit singles within a calendar year in the Norwegian singles chart (6 no. 1 hits in 1964).
* Most consecutive no. 1 hits in the Swiss singles chart (5 consecutive no. 1 hits from 1968 to 1970, chart only started in 1968).
* Group with most weeks in the Australian singles chart (604 weeks).
* Group with most weeks in the Finnish singles chart (437 weeks).
* Group with most top 10 hits in the Austrian singles chart (25 top 10 hits).
* Group with most top 10 hits in the Danish singles chart (33 top 10 hits).
* 23 no. 1 hits in Australia (101 weeks at no. 1).
* 23 no. 1 hits in Canada (74 weeks at no. 1).
* 21 no. 1 hits in The Netherlands (67 weeks at no. 1).
* 21 no. 1 hits in Norway (97 weeks at no. 1).
* 21 no. 1 hits in Sweden.
* 20 no. 1 hits in America (59 weeks at no. 1).
* 17 no. 1 hits in Britain (69 weeks at no. 1).
* 15 no. 1 hits in New Zealand (27 weeks at no. 1).
* 14 no. 1 hits in Denmark (71 weeks at no. 1).
* 13 no. 1 hits in Ireland (48 weeks at no. 1).
* 12 no. 1 hits in Germany (32 weeks at no. 1).
* 8 no. 1 hits in Zimbabwe (29 weeks at no. 1).
* 7 no. 1 hits in Hong Kong.
* 6 no. 1 hits in Austria (38 weeks at no. 1).
* 6 no. 1 hits in Belgium (20 weeks at no. 1).
* 5 no. 1 hits in Finland.
* 5 no. 1 hits in Malaysia.
* 5 no. 1 hits in Switzerland (29 weeks at no. 1).
* 4 no. 1 hits in Italy (11 weeks at no. 1).
* 4 no. 1 hits in Spain (12 weeks at no. 1).
* 2 no. 1 hits in Ethiopia (98 weeks at no. 1)


And dont forget we had a much smaller population back then. Also there were no ROCK stations. Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin were still topping the charts at the time. There wasnt even FM yet. You all need a better perspective on all this. Most of the groups you think invented all this stuff like Hendrix and Zep were a musical generation behind the Beatles.

[Reverend Joe]

Most of the groups you think invented all this stuff like Hendrix and Zep were a musical generation behind the Beatles.
Yeah, and magic mushrooms grow from cow crap. What's your point?

Sorry. I had to. :laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yeah, and magic mushrooms grow from cow crap. What's your point?

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

That you dont give the Beatles enough credit GAH


So we have finally reached the peak of the countdown and who better to top it than The Beatles. Not only did they change the face of music forever but they changed the world. Everything The Beatles did was news and not only news but large news, whether it was Paul admitting he used drugs, John saying “The Beatles are bigger than Jesus,” or turning down an offer to play for royalty in the Philippines it seemed as if the world revolved around the fab four. In my last post I said that Pink Floyd was the most influential band in Progressive Rock music, well The Beatles take the spot for the most influential band in music, they were so incredibly innovative and important. They seemed to have a limitless imagination and their creativity will never be matched. I could write a novel on the importance of The Beatles but I’m sure nobody would like to read that and I sure don’t feel like writing that much

Ask your dad he was there. Everything in music changed because of the Beatles right down to the packaging.

LINK (http://www.imagineechoes.com/2005/11/1-beatles.html)

And as a last resort I present you with this. If it doesnt change your mind nothing will

The Unholy Legacy of The Beatles (http://logosresourcepages.org/Music/beatles.htm) by Pastor David L. Brown, Ph.D.

[KukriKhan]

In my opinion, The Beatles proved that even blue-collar brits of humble musical talent, could assimilate Afro-Carib slave music, and make it palatable to the white man's ear. Later, they stretched to assimilate other cultures' music; Indian, Asian, every genre popular (us 'country', folk, etc.).

That wasn't a bad thing. For that they deserve respect. But not adoration. They were a part (an important part, due to the influence of radio) of a chain leading to the global popular music appreciation we have today.

Their strength, I think, was their ability to understand, and mimic, then reproduce as their own, other people's music.

Their weakness was, their own popular success. In their early, hungry days, they were great. Once they found out what worked/paid best, they kind of lost their creative edge, in my opinion.

Mr. McCartney has always been able to make 'pretty' songs. He continues to do so. Without the fiery tempering of Mr. Lennon, and the musically-creative genius of Mr. Harrison, it just sounds syrupy. Mr. Starr's drumming has always been underrated. In their earlier years, IMO, HE (Ringo) was the soul of the outfit, bringing order to the chaos of the ongoing power struggle of Lennon-McCartney, and the anarchism of Harrison.

Go ahead: recite a Beatles song; you'll likely forget a word or line or two. But the beat? You remember every cymbal 'tish' and 'boomp' of the bass drum.

[Franconicus]

Gawain, great thread, great statement. I agree with you completly. (well, maybe you underrate the importance of the fab four a bit :clown:)

[Subedei]

Wow, just felt like visiting a music forum...no offence...but you know I had a couple of musicrelated posts as soon as i hit the "new posts" button.

Rock & Roll TW....

My opinion on music is, you can´t really tell somebody to like something or listen to something, if he/she has his or her own taste...if not, they´ll just listen to what most of the people listen to....

[naut]

To jump in the deep end I'd have to say most of the technical/production changes should be attributed to those behind the sound desks.


Go ahead: recite a Beatles song; you'll likely forget a word or line or two. But the beat? You remember every cymbal 'tish' and 'boomp' of the bass drum.
Bonzo is sooo much better than Ringo. Period. Ringo's drumming is so mundane and rudimentary. And I know you will argue that he revolutionised drumming, etcetera. But the fact of the matter is when in comes down to the individual instrument's uses and styles of play, Ringo did no such thing. It was later drummers such as Bonzo, Mitch Mitchell and even to some extent Ginger Baker (aka monkeyman). That's not to say he's bad, because that would be rubbish too, he is decent and underrated (see "Strawberry Fields Forever", the drumming is exemplary). However, he simply cannot match the power and bass-snare syncopation of Bonzo, the technicality, speed or rhythm of Mitchell and the energy of Baker.

The one thing The Beatles really did epitomise was the cult of personality.

Listen to the man, "it was to look at them [The Beatles], you didn't really bother what you were listening too", the most articulate drummer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0fqgq6ZMZY).

Now here's drumming. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK9FBBrff3A)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow how did I miss this


Again, I find that the vast majority of the pints stated in your article are either purely opinion or detrimental to music and society as a whole.


Well your wrong again as usual


I despise most people like this. And I have very short hair (I cut it with a 3/8" comb.)

But you like all those other long haired hippy groups. Your bias is showing again.


The Beatniks started this, and they were most responsible for spreading it as a phenomenon, not the Beatles.


What can I say other than your out of your mind.


None of this could possibly considered "good", especially the loss of rockabilly; in fact, it could be said that Creedence reversed the damage done by the Beatles. As for the psychedelic movement, I would argue it was more fueled by the effects of LSD and marijuana upon the Rock/Rockabilly culture and the general "outsider" culture than any Beatles music.


Your showing a total lack of knowledge of the times here. Creedence revered the damage? How? What damage? The Beatles music indeed fuled by drugs. It was they who are indeed responsible for spreading their use. But drugs have always been used by musicians and artists. You really are cluless on this topic it seems.

And how is opening the door for British rock a bad thing?


This already existed as far back as Woody Gutherie, not to mention the slave spirituals; it would have appeared anyway, regardless of the Beatles.

Are you kidding me? Yeah everyone knows Woody. Hec more probably know his son.Sure people had these ideas before but nobody had such an influence on music and society. Your missing the whole point.




First actual positive point I have seen so far. However, many, if not most, of my favorite artists did not write their own material, and I think it is foolish to think that artists should create all original material. Again, look at Creedence:
an excellent band, but much of their best material (Suzy Q, Ninety nine and a Half, Midnight Special, The Night Time is the Right Time, Heard It Through the Grapevine) was not original.

So you shouldnt be creative according to you. The Beatles did a lot more covers than CCR did. And they were much bigger hits with them

Tell me who wrote Proud Mary, Lookin' Out My Back Door, Fortunate Son,Bad Moon Rising, Up Around The Bend, Have You Ever Seen the Rain? and Who'll Stop The Rain. Did they play their own instrument? So they did not only write most of their own songs but most of their hits. They too were influenced by the Beatles

hey wouldnt even have had the studio to record it in or the equipment to make it without the Beatles.


An incredibly pompous attempt to inflate the Beatles to proportions to which they are undeserving.

All this shows is you have nothing but a laymans sense of music. Check out the structure of their music.



I stand corrected. THIS was the worst thing to ever happen to music. When musicians began to rely on artificiality and studio sound, music took a turn for the worse.

Everyone cant go see a group in concert. So after the Beatless music took a turn for the worse huh.:wall:


To jump in the deep end I'd have to say most of the technical/production changes should be attributed to those behind the sound desks.

The Beatles were those guys.


Ringo's drumming is so mundane and rudimentary. And I know you will argue that he revolutionised drumming, etcetera. But the fact of the matter is when in comes down to the individual instrument's uses and styles of play, Ringo did no such thing

What would anyone with your name know about drums? Ringo was perfect for the Beatles.


I was lucky enough to be surrounded by three frustrated drummers and each of them thought I was an octopus. They forgot I only had two hands and two feet. I remember John once coming and playing a record and saying, "Oh, Ringo, I just love you to play this." I said, "But, John, there's two drummers on that!" "Oh, no, you can do it." So then I would have to do whatever I could to get close." -- Ringo Starr in Musician Magazine (June 1991)

"Playing without Ringo is like driving a car on three wheels." -- George Harrison (1964).

"Ringo Starr is still an underrated drummer. To begin with, he keeps flawless time, never giving in to the tendency to rush or slow down -- an essential element of driving Rock 'n' Roll. ... His role in the band is impossible to discount. Each track has its own drum sound, its own specific patterns, and he gives each song a special feel by adjusting his rhythms to suit the musical tone. His partnership with Paul's increasingly active bass playing is still a lesson in how variously the bottom can support the top." -- Tim Riley, Tell Me Why(1988).

"Ringo has a tremendous feel for a song and he always helped us hit the right tempo first time. He was rock solid and this made the recording of all the Beatles' songs so much easier" -- George Martin, in The Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn (1988)

"People who think that (Ringo could be replaced) are ignorant. His personality and style of drumming helped make the band. ... You take any one member from that group, and you won't have the Beatles." --- Discoveries magazine (1993)

"In the strangest way, he complemented his three fellow Beatles like only Ringo could. As a musician, a drummer, he's been ridiculed countless times in the past; it's only now that he's beginning to be viewed in another light. His drumming, as simple and basic as it was, turned out to be the perfect drum style for all the Lennon and McCartney tunes." -- Robert Santelli in Goldmine magazine(1985)

"Ringo did the job absolutely correctly. ... They were just great songs, and he played them in the only way they could be played. What he did was absolutely right." -- Brian Bennett in Speaking Words of Wisdom by Spencer Leigh (1991)

"(In the song, I'm Down), the band veers breathlessly close to the edge of hysteria, and it's to Ringo's credit that things don't fall apart. The hardest assignment for any drummer is to let the others cut loose to the extreme while providing a steady beat for them to fall back on. Lesser bands would easily come unglued with a groove so addled and punctured; Ringo maintains a sure but unconfining back beat for the madness, the strongest glue of all." -- Tim Riley, Tell Me Why by Tim Riley (1988).

"During his tenure with The Beatles, until the group's demise, he did his job admirably, adding only what was deemed necessary to complement The Beatles material. Ringo succeeded, simply because what he played was perfect for the music." -- Great Rock Drummers of the 60s by Bob Cianci (1989)

"As a drummer he was a natural, purely intuitive, remarkably tasteful, spirited, but always basic, a proponent of the less-is-more school of minimal drumming. With a sense of endearing modesty, Ringo has often disparaged his drumming over the years; but the fact of the matter was that his willingness to lay back and take direction and feed the others -- a quality which seemed intrinsically rooted in his background and character -- was what allowed The Beatles sound to take such powerful flight. He was, in essence, the perfect team player, a character musician whose ingenuity grew directly out of a sublime ability to make his deficiencies and flaws as a musician work to accentuate and liberate rather hold back their music. -- Martin Torgoff in The Compleat Beatles (1985).

"George became fascinated with the intricacies of Indian music. ... Paul sat increasingly more behind the piano, his knowledge of song writing and pop sensibility expanding as horizontally as the keyboard itself; and John conceptualized and figured artistic directions, always called for more experimentation; Ringo drummed resolutely on, seemingly able to keep up with each one effortlessly." -- Lenny Kaye in The Compleat Beatles (1985)

"Lennon got into abstract lyrics and his acid rock guitar style, McCartney expanded and refined his pop-writing craft, and Harrison got very involved in authentic Indian music and Indian instruments. Ringo, meanwhile, had the challenge of adapting to everyone's style. He always played what was called for. If he had been a rigid drummer, set in his ways, The Beatles would have been in trouble. He played the songwriter's version of the song, not his, like an egoless drummer. ... He always had a gift for being very musical with The Beatles music." -- Kenny Aronoff in Modern Drummer magazine (Nov. 1987)

"He had a style that was simple and basic, and it fitted the style and the time. He was a low-profile drummer which was absolutely right for The Beatles. He was an extremely good accompanist. ... He had great empathy with what The Beatles were doing. He was very modest in his approach to drumming." -- Rowan Atkinson in Speaking Words of Wisdom by Spencer Leigh (1991)

"I think Ringo star was a lot more than adequate and he was the unsung hero of The Beatles. He was one of the best. ... He was a straight-four player, a four-four player, and a very solid drummer. It must have been very hard for the Beatles to play with all those kids screaming, there weren't good monitors in those days, and Ringo held those concerts together. They were following him, he wasn't following them." -- Richard Thompson in Speaking Words of Wisdom by Spencer Leigh (1991).




Their strength, I think, was their ability to understand, and mimic, then reproduce as their own, other people's music.

They didnt play other peoples music. Your on the right track here however. What they did was take all styles of music and apply them to rock thus expanding rock to what we see today. This is what really makes them important. They opened a whole new world. I really wish you people could go back to the early 60s and hear what was on the radio. Just compare rock before the Beatles to rock after the Beatles. The Beatles were the 60s.


That wasn't a bad thing. For that they deserve respect. But not adoration. They were a part (an important part, due to the influence of radio) of a chain leading to the global popular music appreciation we have today.

No they were the driving force and major Influence. Im afraid your not giving them their due. Im afraid only those of us who actually lived through it can really appreciate just what the Beatles meant to my generation and to the world.

[Bijo]

My my: you really are determined to straighten out all of them who do not give the Beatles their credit enough. The discussion between the two oppositions whereof you are one is most interesting.

[KukriKhan]

That wasn't a bad thing. For that they deserve respect. But not adoration. They were a part (an important part, due to the influence of radio) of a chain leading to the global popular music appreciation we have today.


No they were the driving force and major Influence. Im afraid your not giving them their due. Im afraid only those of us who actually lived through it can really appreciate just what the Beatles meant to my generation and to the world.


I was there too, then, Gawain. Though I grew up in Motown, where we took notice of the Liverpudlians, but thought they were just stealing our guys' stuff.

[Geoffrey S]

The things said against the Beatles seem to come purely from hindsight in a childish rant against the fact that their originality tends to be overshadowed by their association with the rise of pop, oversaturation of the phenomenon, not to mention that yes, they are dated now and there were and are better bands.

But to take that into account denies the fact that at the time they were great, there was nothing like them, and that all in all they had a huge amount of influence on the development of pop culture.

[Husar]

I like beetles (http://www.buseck-online.de/a-images/rueckblick2003/marienkaefer-110503-1.jpg).:inquisitive:
But I can't understand why you're so excited about them.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I was there too, then, Gawain. Though I grew up in Motown, where we took notice of the Liverpudlians, but thought they were just stealing our guys' stuff.

Nah your just a kid :laugh4: Look everyone didnt think the Beatles were the end all and their early stuff certainly included a lot of Motown covers. They were big fans of the sound.

Heres maybe a better take on it.


The Beatles were to rock music what Louis Armstrong was to jazz. Both artists began by studying and thoroughly assimilating artists that had come before. By doing so, they essentially created their respective art forms, by combining what had previously been isolated characteristics of individual artists into cohesive approaches to music. And they both went on to symbolize and advance their respective art forms, having such monumental influences that it would be impossible for any later artists to be untouched by their work.

The Beatles began by studying a broad set of musical influences, including early Rock and Roll, Blues, Rhythm & Blues, Country & Western, girl groups, Phil Spector's Wall of Sound, and Broadway show tunes. They went on to exemplify and solidify all of the aesthetic elements of rock music discussed in this book.

First on the list of The Beatles' many talents were the songwriting skills of Lennon and McCartney. Unlike most of their contemporaries, they were not content to simply throw three chords together and cobble together a melody. They took the songwriting craft very seriously, and as a result, their compositions were often covered by other recording artists, in vocal and instrumental forms. Their songs were varied, with each effort standing on its own as a unique achievement.

Next on the list of their gifts were their voices. John and Paul both had wonderful singing voices: expressive, controlled, flexible and attractive. But all four of them could sing to some degree, and their harmonies and multi-layered vocals were hallmarks of their style. Again, as with their compositions, the uses they made of their vocals were many and varied, with differing arrangements on every song.


Perhaps their strongest talent, especially in the context of a rock aesthetic, was their ability to find the perfect expression of each song in the studio. While many rock groups took a loose, bluesy, improvisational approach to their music, the Beatles took a more formal, structured approach to their recordings. Every element of a track was worked out to perfectly blend with and complement the other elements of the song. In this sense they were like painters. Every sound on a track was like a brush stroke placed on canvas by a master: existing for its own sake, but also for its relationship to all the other components of the work, ultimately achieving a perfectly balanced whole. The Beatles were probably the rock group that best captured the spatial nature of rock music, its existence in two dimensions: length and depth. Every musical element was perfectly formed and positioned as part of this two-dimensional landscape. As Paul McCartney commented in a recent interview, after re-listening to the Beatles hits that made up the 1 compilation: “The main thing I thought as a craftsman was how well structured the songs were — that there was nothing that shouldn't have been on them, and you couldn't have put one extra thing on.” (McCartney 2001) (McCartney 2001)

The easiest way to understand this element of their art is to listen to practically any recording of a Lennon and McCartney tune recorded by someone else, and then compare it to the original recording released by The Beatles. Other recordings retain the beauty of the original compositions, yet no matter how well intentioned, sound flat by comparison. This is because they are missing an entire dimension of the original recording: the drumming, the bass patterns, the rhythm guitar, the vocal arrangements. For The Beatles, these other elements were not mere window dressing, not just ornamentation added to the underlying composition — these were essential elements of their art. In this regard, Ringo and George, while not prolific songwriters or frequent singers, were essential to The Beatles' music. Both were versatile musicians in that they were able to play in whatever style best supported the material being recorded, subsuming their personal styles into the demands of the work at hand. At the same time, they both had keen abilities to add something unique and wonderful to each song, adding to and complementing the other musical elements.

Another element that contributed to the Beatles' music was their awareness of a broader expanse of artistic endeavor. John had gone to art school, and produced writings and drawings. The Beatles often attracted, and hung out with, artists and students. As Paul indicates below, art was part of who they were.


We were always slightly studenty. We used to make fun of the other bands who weren't. I received a poetry book once, in Hamburg: Yevtushenko. A girlfriend sent it to me.... The point was that we had a book of poetry; it was part of our equipment. It was part and parcel of what we all liked — art. (Beatles 2000)


Finally, what also separated The Beatles from many of their lesser contemporaries was a relentless desire for discovery and experimentation. They were never content to stop at a particular plateau and set up camp — as soon as they had explored a new territory, they were ready to push on to something new. They were the Lewis and Clark of rock music, forever wanting to find new frontiers.


The evolution of The Beatles' recorded output from 1963 to 1969 not only gave focus and meaning to this particular group's musical efforts, but to all of rock music. Because of their unequaled commercial, cultural and aesthetic stature, they were able to act as leaders for the rock community during their recording career. While this evolution resulted in distinct differences between recordings produced at different phases of their career, each phase has its own virtues, and almost all of their recorded work is worth repeated listening

LINK (http://www.reasontorock.com/artists/beatles.html)


they are dated now and there were and are better bands.

Im afraid you also are not giving the Beatles their due. Sgt Peppers, the White Album and Abbey Road for instance sound as fresh and new today as they ever did. Thats why teens still are discovering the Beatles today. I still cant think of a better band. Music certainly has gone down hill from the 60s and early 70s not up. There are no better groups today. That was the golden age of rock.

They made rock respectable.

In the end they were what they set out to be . The Gilbert and Sullivan of rock,

[Ianofsmeg16]

The Beatles = Great

Let it be is such a good song, i cant describe when i listen to the beatles..its not one of great emotion, they dont get my blood boiling...but i could sit in my computer chair and listen to them for hours...

I get the same feeling when listening to Dark side of the moon...my friends have told me that the best way to listen to it is when stoned...i disagree, i've never been stoned and all i can say is that sitting in your comfortable computer chair with a cold beer and good company...music liek the beatles, floyd, Aerosmith, Bad Company and the Eagles just seems like pure heaven..

and i'm 17.

[Reverend Joe]

To be quite honest, Gawain, I'm really just trying to piss you off at this point. I think it's funny. :laugh4:

And besides:

My opinion on music is, you can´t really tell somebody to like something or listen to something, if he/she has his or her own taste...if not, they´ll just listen to what most of the people listen to....
:2thumbsup:

You keep telling me to worship the Beatles like gods. And yeah, the were good. Yeah, they changed music. But so did so many others. So did the bluesmen. So did Chuck Berry and the rock-and-rollers. So did Hendrix (yes, he damn well did; I don't care who invented his sound, he was the one who made it big, just like the Beatles. :clown: ) So did *shudder* Michael Jackson (ask any modern pop artist; he began *shudder* modern pop.) And frankly, so did *shudder* Kurt Cobain.

Does it mean we have to respect and adore any of them? No. Because we can find points of contention with all of them. And do we have to like any of them? No. Because it's a matter of taste.

Now go smoke a joint and relax. ~:smoking:

[Reverend Joe]

I get the same feeling when listening to Dark side of the moon...my friends have told me that the best way to listen to it is when stoned...i disagree, i've never been stoned and all i can say is that sitting in your comfortable computer chair with a cold beer and good company...music liek the beatles, floyd, Aerosmith, Bad Company and the Eagles just seems like pure heaven.
:inquisitive: How can you possibly pass judgement on something you have never done? Trust me, marijuana really does make a difference. I used to be obsessed with Dark Side; I thought it couldn't possibly get any better; I even knew it note for note. But when I started smoking, and I first listened to it high; I quite literally thought I was hearing things I had never heard before, like new notes and rhythms and patterns. The difference is really incredible.

I'm not saying it's better (okay, maybe I am...) but I would insist that, at the very least, it makes a world of difference.

Plus Dark Side lasts about 3 1/2 hours as opposed to 40 minutes. :laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You keep telling me to worship the Beatles like gods

No I dont. In fact I said you dont even have to like them.



You keep telling me to worship the Beatles like gods. And yeah, the were good. Yeah, they changed music. But so did so many others. So did the bluesmen. So did Chuck Berry and the rock-and-rollers. So did Hendrix (yes, he damn well did; I don't care who invented his sound, he was the one who made it big, just like the Beatles. ) So did *shudder* Michael Jackson (ask any modern pop artist; he began *shudder* modern pop.) And frankly, so did *shudder* Kurt Cobain.

None of those even come close. I hate to say it but your showing a bit of ignorance here. Your so far off base its ludicrous and you are starting to piss me off, if thats your intention. Just ignore everything I post. Hendrix never made it big Just like the Beatles. Thats the point Nobody even comes close. Their in a league of their own. If you measure success by sales and fame they Blow Hendrix away. They blow everybody away.


Does it mean we have to respect and adore any of them? No. Because we can find points of contention with all of them.

As compared to the Beatles certainly. Their pikers in comparison.


And do we have to like any of them? No. Because it's a matter of taste.


You finally got something right. Its like me sitting here and telling everyone Beethoven sucks because I dont like his music.:laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How can you possibly pass judgement on something you have never done? Trust me, marijuana really does make a difference. I used to be obsessed with Dark Side; I thought it couldn't possibly get any better; I even knew it note for note. But when I started smoking, and I first listened to it high; I quite literally thought I was hearing things I had never heard before, like new notes and rhythms and patterns. The difference is really incredible.

I'm not saying it's better (okay, maybe I am...) but I would insist that, at the very least, it makes a world of difference.

Try a hit of acid and you will hear even more. The great thing about both Floyd and the Beatles is they can take you to that high without the benifit of drugs. Heck I get flashbacks listening to Floyd. The whole point of mind altering drugs is to guess what? Alter your mind, hence your perception of reality. Your not hearing anything that wasnt there in the first place. Believe me I doubt anyone here has done more drugs than I. Dont encourage people to do drugs in the front room . Its not nice:laugh4: Leave that to the Beatles :laugh4:

[Odin]

Believe me I doubt anyone here has done more drugs than I

as I have said in other posts in other veins, you never know who is on the other side of the screen.

The beatles have been given plenty of "due", enough already. How about giving Bob Dylan some due for getting them high in 65 and asking them "what the hell are you writing about, I wanna hold your hand?" and then presto ! the two best beatles albums

Rubber sole and revolver.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

as I have said in other posts in other veins, you never know who is on the other side of the screen.

I dont care who it is. I dont know anybody in real life who has dome more either :laugh4: You get my point however. Im quite fit to have an opinion on this matter :beam:


The beatles have been given plenty of "due", enough already. How about giving Bob Dylan some due for getting them high in 65 and asking them "what the hell are you writing about, I wanna hold your hand?" and then presto ! the two best beatles albums

Rubber sole and revolver.

No problem Dylan was another of their major influences. They certainly give him credit as do I. But again he didnt have the effect that the Beatles did. They put it all together.

You know all these years it never occurred to me how fit a title Revolver was. I always though of it as going in circles or turning like a record. But in reality it was the start of the music revolution spawned by the Beatles.

[Odin]

You know all these years it never occurred to me how fit a title Revolver was. I always though of it as going in circles or turning like a record. But in reality it was the start of the music revolution spawned by the Beatles.

Its a great album, for me all the pop crap they put out was just that crap. They spawned a revolution? Funny I thought it was Dylan all those wantabe beatniks were aspiring to be with the culmination of woodstock.

He's the one we should be giving due to, the beatles have gotten thiers and then some.

[drone]

I dont care who it is. I dont know anybody in real life who has dome more either :laugh4: You get my point however. Im quite fit to have an opinion on this matter :beam:
Keith Richards? Is that you?

[Geoffrey S]

Im afraid you also are not giving the Beatles their due. Sgt Peppers, the White Album and Abbey Road for instance sound as fresh and new today as they ever did. Thats why teens still are discovering the Beatles today. I still cant think of a better band. Music certainly has gone down hill from the 60s and early 70s not up. There are no better groups today. That was the golden age of rock.

They made rock respectable.
In a way, yes, I suppose I'm not giving them their due. It took me an awful long time to actually start listening to the Beatles, and having heard many good bands strongly influenced by them I can imagine the perception was somewhat dulled. But I'd certainly not say there are no better groups today, though nothing has ever been quite as revolutionary in commercialising the rock genre; listen to many a well-known modern rock act, be it Modest Mouse, Oasis, or Blur and there are certainly many influences, so I'd agree with you that the Beatles were fundamental. But no better groups? That is selling the somewhat less mainstream formations short, in which I've heard many a unique and brilliant sound. The best band of all times is in my opinion Godspeed You! Black Emperor, closely followed by Mogwai, both relatively recent formations.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

They spawned a revolution? Funny I thought it was Dylan all those wantabe beatniks were aspiring to be with the culmination of woodstock.


Well then you think wrong. :laugh4: We werent beatniks we were hippies. Your thinking of Maynard G Krebs

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/lawrence/153/krebsbig.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/lawrence/153/krebs.html&h=391&w=266&sz=38&tbnid=pBYvc0uRYyag0M:&tbnh=123&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmaynard%2Bg%2Bkrebs%26um%3D1&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1


He's the one we should be giving due to, the beatles have gotten thiers and then some.

Are you kidding me? No one gives Dylan his due? Tell me about it. By the way who was it who showed him that hey Bob you can play rock too. Just plug yourself in? I know many think this ruined him. The point is Dylan nor anyone else had the influence on music that the Bealtes did. Dylan is an incredible song writer, Hendrix maybe the best guitarist ever but nobody put it all together like the Beatles. Not then not now. They are greater than the sum of their parts and thier parts arent that bad.

Now growing up when I did my favorite groups before the Beatles were the 4 Seasons and the Beach Boys. Both these groups not only wrote their own songs but played their own instruments before the Beatles. But they didnt make it popular the Beatles did. My first album was the Beatles vs the 4 Seasons. Its worth 5 grand now. Wish I still had it. I was into Motown as well but thats pretty much all that was around. Everything was 2-3 minutes long and there were no messages in any of it. Just like the early Bealtes. They changed all that. You would never even have heard most of Dylan on the radio if not for the Beatles.

And while were giving people their do lets not leave out the Beach Boys. Pet sounds was one of the most innovative and influential albums ever made even being the main inspiration for Sgt Pepper. Pets Sounds in turn was inspired by Rubber Soul.


Brian Wilson says that like most of the songwriters and producers of the '60s the Beatles pushed him to do his best work. Wilson told the avclub.com that his inspiration to create the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds was due to feeling direct competition with the "Fab Four," recalling that, "I heard Rubber Soul one night in my house here in L.A., and I was so blown out that I said, 'I have to record an album as good or better than Rubber Soul. If I ever do anything in my life, I'm going to make that good an album.' And so we did."


What the hell does he know ?

[Odin]

Are you kidding me? No one gives Dylan his due? Tell me about it. By the way who was it who showed him that hey Bob you can play rock too. Just plug yourself in? I know many think this ruined him. The point is Dylan nor anyone else had the influence on music that the Bealtes did. Dylan is an incredible song writer, Hendrix maybe the best guitarist ever but nobody put it all together like the Beatles. Not then not now. They are greater than the sum of their parts and thier parts arent that bad.


but prior to this you conceded Dylans influence on the beatles (at least I think you did, your clever like that :2thumbsup: ). Sorry, but Dylan still pumping out great lyrics and has done just about everything you can, country, blues, pop,folk, the beatles cant touch his range.


And while were giving people their do lets not leave out the Beach Boys. Pet sounds was one of the most innovative and influential albums ever made even being the main inspiration for Sgt Pepper. Pets Sounds in turn was inspired by Rubber Soul.

I wont dispute Brian Wilson is one of the greats, but he was great before the beatles even got to Rubber soul, his song writing and melodies was eerie and even motown would be hard pressed to match his arriagnments.

For the record I place him neck and neck with the beatles for sheer ability, a 2nd place finish for influence.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but prior to this you conceded Dylans influence on the beatles (at least I think you did, your clever like that

And I still do. Again many people influenced them


Sorry, but Dylan still pumping out great lyrics and has done just about everything you can, country, blues, pop,folk, the beatles cant touch his range.

Other than the last sentence your absolutely correct.


I wont dispute Brian Wilson is one of the greats, but he was great before the beatles even got to Rubber soul, his song writing and melodies was eerie and even motown would be hard pressed to match his arriagnments.

For the record I place him neck and neck with the beatles for sheer ability, a 2nd place finish for influence.

Again we agree. And that was my point. But you must admit that the Beatles were more influential than the Beach Boys. Or anyone else in music history for that matter no matter who their inspiration was.

Me and my friend who lived behind me went battled on forever over which band was better. In the end the Beatles were more versatile IMO.

My point with Dylan is everyone gives him the respect he is due. At least I certainly do. Besides I was big into Peter Paul and Mary. Just as influential as Dylan IMO.

[Odin]

Again we agree. And that was my point. But you must admit that the Beatles were more influential than the Beach Boys.

I'll agree to that.


Or anyone else in music history for that matter no matter who their inspiration was.

I dont know Elvis, Dylan, Zep come to mind as potentially more influential given thier particular genre's of music.



Besides I was big into Peter Paul and Mary. Just as influential as Dylan IMO.

:7jester:

"It proves one thing mr hooper, it proves you wealthy college boys dont have the education enough to admit when your wrong" Quint (robert shaw, in jaws).

If you truly believe this Gawain that dosent bolster your credability one bit my friend. Sorry but I'm crying foul on this one.... oye

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I dont know Elvis, Dylan, Zep come to mind as potentially more influential given thier particular genre's of music.
To their own particular genre's of music yes. Again Zep is nothing more than a blues rip off band with rock roots.


If you truly believe this Gawain that dosent bolster your credability one bit my friend. Sorry but I'm crying foul on this one.... oye

So you dont think they influenced Dylan?


What began as individual solo careers in the Village became a "family" through the insight, creativity and foresight of Albert Grossman, their mentor and manager. Grossman at that time was managing Bob Dylan, who two years later in 1963 wrote the "In The Wind" album liner notes - - the album is a classic and Dylan's notes are a poetic tribute to Peter Paul & Mary.


1962 marked the trio's debut on Warner Brothers Records with "Peter, Paul and Mary" which brought folk music to the vast American public and to the top of the charts. As Billboard Magazine noted, "It became an instant classic. The album was in the Top 10 for ten months, remained in the Top 20 for two years, and did not drop off the Hot 100 album chart until three-and-a-half years after its release." The trio's version of "If I Had A Hammer" was not only a popular single from this LP, it was also embraced as an anthem of the civil rights movement.
By virtue of the trio's popularity, their recordings effectively introduced the work of important new writing talents to the American public. Their renditions of Gordon Lightfoot's "In The Early Morning Rain" and John Denver's "Leaving On A Jet Plane," engineered by the legendary Phil Ramone, helped launch an appreciation and awareness of these "new" artists. By 1970, Peter, Paul & Mary had earned eight gold and five platinum albums.

Hey can you tell me who made Blowing in the wind a hit? Yes they influenced each other. Believe me they did as much if not more to make folk music popular and no one has stuck more to their roots.

I still would rather listen to their beautifu harmonies than that grating voice of Dylans. It shows just what a great musician he is to be able to have all those great songs with a voice like a frog. I hate to say it but In his case the covers are almost always the hits. Dont get me wrong Just like Ringos drumming I prefer Bobs versions. Its just the way they were supposed to be. I mean who else can sing rainy day women like that?

[Beirut]

To their own particular genre's of music yes. Again Zep is nothing more than a blues rip off band with rock roots.

That's a surprising statement coming from you. You've been extolling, rightly I would say, the Beatles musical merits this whole thread. Yet you've referred to Led Zep as "nothing more than a blues rip off band with rock roots".

Don't you think that's a bit harsh, as well as perhaps unrealistic given the quality of their music and their historical fame?

[Odin]

[QUOTE]To their own particular genre's of music yes. Again Zep is nothing more than a blues rip off band with rock roots.

Well maybe but the fact they ripped off some blues dosent speak to thier influence. Pick a hair band from the 70's and 80's and if they arent a carbon copy of Led Zep, then perhaps it was Sabbath, anyway you slice it,Zep influence on right up there with the best of them.




So you dont think they influenced Dylan?

I didnt say they didnt influence him, I am saying they arent as big an influence (not by a long shot) as Dylan, are you?






Hey can you tell me who made Blowing in the wind a hit?

Peter paul and mary did, they released it a few months before Dylan, but he wrote the lyrics, so clearly its his influence on them.



I still would rather listen to their beautifu harmonies than that grating voice of Dylans. It shows just what a great musician he is to be able to have all those great songs with a voice like a frog. I hate to say it but In his case the covers are almost always the hits. Dont get me wrong Just like Ringos drumming I prefer Bobs versions. Its just the way they were supposed to be. I mean who else can sing rainy day women like that?

Dylans voice sucks, but it works on just about all his songs, why? Because the lyrics are superior, and you, me, the wall, and every muscian since 65 knows it.

If I recall correctly even the sex pistols cite dylan as an influence, I have to look it up though.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That's a surprising statement coming from you. You've been extolling, rightly I would say, the Beatles musical merits this whole thread. Yet you've referred to Led Zep as "nothing more than a blues rip off band with rock roots".

Don't you think that's a bit harsh, as well as perhaps unrealistic given the quality of their music and their historical fame?

No its the truth .Their one of the most over rated bands of all time. Most of their hits are ripoffs where they didnt even credit the original artists. Give me Cream any day. And again it was the Who , who started this not Zep.

Remember earlier when I said to someone were a rock generation apart? Well thats what Zep and the Beatles are. I still can remember me and my friends making fun of the 'kids" who thought Zep was something new that they had discovered. We thought they were nuts. I appreciate them much nore today than I did back then. The first two albums and most of the third however looking back are outstanding. Even if they are rip offs. Im not denying they are very talented.


anyway you slice it,Zep influence on right up there with the best of them.


Not in your wildest dreams. They were original in the least so any copy of them is copying someone else and it wasnt Sabbath either . Again it was the Who.


I didnt say they didnt influence him, I am saying they arent as big an influence (not by a long shot) as Dylan, are you?

No I dont. Im trying to illustrate that comparing Dylan to the Beatles is like comparing Peter Paul and Mary to Dylan.


Peter paul and mary did, they released it a few months before Dylan, but he wrote the lyrics, so clearly its his influence on them

They are the ones who opened the door for folk in pop music is my point.


Dylans voice sucks, but it works on just about all his songs, why? Because the lyrics are superior, and you, me, the wall, and every muscian since 65 knows it.


And I totally agree I even said so. No one writes better songs.

[Beirut]

No its the truth .Their one of the most over rated bands of all time. Most of their hits are ripoffs where they didnt even credit the original artists. Give me Cream any day. And again it was the Who , who started this not Zep.



Oh, be nice. I'm certainly not denying that The Who are great, a lot of the bands of that time were great, including Cream. But that does not mean Led Zep is not.

I think this business about "rip off" is a bit much. Everyone influences everyone else. It's the natural progression of art (and warfare for that matter, as Machiavelli wrote that all great men are influenced and follow the lessons of other great men). If only true originality is great, then we would be limited to very, very few musicians. We could carry it to extremes and say everyone after Robert Johnson sucked because they all ripped him off.

[Ronin]

you can tell those overrated 60´s hacks that I still don´t care!

[KukriKhan]

Everyone influences everyone else. It's the natural progression of art

^^Uuuu, Look everybody. Truth and wisdom there.^^

edit: If we're discussing the seething cauldron of 60's popular music, yeah, we gotta give props to John, Paul, George, and Ringo. They were great, but they weren't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Once they stopped playing live In My Humble Opinion (which I understood, as they couldn't hear themselves over the din of 13-year old girlie-girl screams) they lost their edge. Sgt Pepper was their peak, I think. All after was sell-records pop sludge. That money influence, + drugs = the death knell of rock-'n-roll, as a stand-alone art form, IMHO.

Later stuff, by Floyd or Zep or whoever - while notable and entertaining, has been an attempt to resusitate, if not resurrect, the dead corpus that rocNroll had become by 1972; a victim of it's own popularity and hyberbole, and the attendant riches heaped upon the unsuspecting artists.

The holy ghost of rock and roll has been haunting the hallways of radio stations, television outlets, and now internet sites, desperately seeking the new next step in its evolution, without success. Punk failed. 'Country' has become smarmy. Jazz is distracted by its own irrelevant intracacies. Rap peaked with RunDMC, and is now a parody of itself. 'World music' stopped being about new sounds, and started being about political agendas. Electronica has no soul.

I conclude: we need a new music-religion. Some sound we can all sink our teeth into, understand at both a primeval level and an intellectual one. Something that borrows from the past without shame, expresses the present, and gives hope for the future.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh, be nice. I'm certainly not denying that The Who are great, a lot of the bands of that time were great, including Cream. But that does not mean Led Zep is not.

Your missing the point Zep was not of their time. They came later.


I think this business about "rip off" is a bit much. Everyone influences everyone else. It's the natural progression of art (and warfare for that matter, as Machiavelli wrote that all great men are influenced and follow the lessons of other great men).

No when I say rip offs thats exactly what I mean. They could at least give the original artist who wrote and perfomed it credit.

I think I posted this before

Now back by popular demand! A list of some of the songs Zep stole from other artists:

* "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" - A folk song by Anne Bredon, this was originally credited as "traditional, arranged by Jimmy Page," then "words and music by Jimmy Page," and then, following legal action, "Bredon/Page/Plant."
* "Black Mountain Side" - uncredited version of a traditional folk tune previously recorded by Bert Jansch.
* "Bring It On Home" - the first section is an uncredited cover of the Willie Dixon tune (as performed by the imposter Sonny Boy Williamson).
* "Communication Breakdown" - apparently derived from Eddie Cochran's "Nervous Breakdown."
* "Custard Pie" - uncredited cover of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down," with lyrics from Sleepy John Estes's "Drop Down Daddy."
* "Dazed And Confused" - uncredited cover of the Jake Holmes song (see The Above Ground Sound Of Jake Holmes).
* "Hats Off To (Roy) Harper" - uncredited version of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down."
* "How Many More Times" - Part one is an uncredited cover of the Howlin' Wolf song (available on numerous compilations). Part two is an uncredited cover of Albert King's "The Hunter."
* "In My Time Of Dying" - uncredited cover of the traditional song (as heard on Bob Dylan's debut).
* "The Lemon Song" - uncredited cover of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor" - Wolf's publisher sued Zeppelin in the early 70s and settled out of court.
* "Moby Dick" - written and first recorded by Sleepy John Estes under the title "The Girl I Love," and later covered by Bobby Parker.
* "Nobody's Fault But Mine" - uncredited cover of the Blind Willie Johnson blues.
* "Since I've Been Lovin' You" - lyrics are the same as Moby Grape's "Never," though the music isn't similar.
* "Stairway To Heaven" - the main guitar line is apparently from "Taurus" by Spirit.
* "White Summer" - uncredited cover of Davey Graham's "She Moved Through The Fair."
* "Whole Lotta Love" - lyrics are from the Willie Dixon blues "You Need Love."

Thats a lot more than "being influenced by them" Its exactly what early white rock and rollers did with back music back in the 50s and 60s.

And those are only the ones they ripped off. It does not include the ones they actually gave credit on. They did nothing new. What they did was perfect their sound.

[naut]

What would anyone with your name know about drums?
Wow, I really don't appreciate the personal attack and I find it rather sad that you resorted to that to refute my claim that Ringo's drumming is average. Not to mention the fact you took it out of context, because I did say he's good/decent and underrated as a musician.

I'm not denying the fact The Beatles were/are good and influencial. They are a great bunch of musicians and songwriters. But when it comes to drumming Ringo is not the best drummer ever and Harrison/Lennon/McCartney are not the best guitarists ever.

John Henry Bonham (http://www.drummerworld.com/Sound/johnbohnhammobylive1.mp3)

Ginger Baker (http://www.drummerworld.com/Sound/GingerBakertoad.mp3)

Mitch Mitchell (http://www.drummerworld.com/Videos/MitchMitchell.html) & Here. (http://www.drummerworld.com/Sound/Mitchmitchellfire.mp3)

These are a few, and very cliche, I'll show you some more obscure ones if you like, because when it comes to drums I know what I'm talking about.

All music is a rip-off of something done before, Led Zeppelin did do that much too often I know that. However, that still doesn't mean your not a great musician on whatever instrument you play, you can't say that Bonzo is a bad drummer or Paul-Jones is a rubbish bassist, because if you do then you are simply being foolish.

[Beirut]

All you need is love. Da-da-da-da-da -da... :daisy:

(Especially in this thread. Let's all be nice, please.)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow, I really don't appreciate the personal attack and I find it rather sad that you resorted to that to refute my claim that Ringo's drumming is average. Not to mention the fact you took it out of context, because I did say he's good/decent and underrated as a musician.


I find it very sad that you take offense at an obvious joke using your name as a pun. I took no offense at all from your post. Everyone has their own tastes and no ones is better than anyone elses. And of course I took it out of contest I was joking. I apologise if you think I meant it.


But when it comes to drumming Ringo is not the best drummer ever and Harrison/Lennon/McCartney are not the best guitarists ever.


Not once in this thread with all the praise Ive heaped on the Beatles have I made any such claim, I said the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Do you understand that concept?

I posted things like this

"He had a style that was simple and basicand it fitted the style and the time. He was a low-profile drummer which was absolutely right for The Beatles. He was an extremely good accompanist. ... He had great empathy with what The Beatles were doing. He was very modest in his approach to drumming." --

I said he was perfect for the Beatles, I never claimed he was the best drummer ever or even better than anyone. Your turn to apologise.

[Bijo]

, I said the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Do you understand that concept?

As much as I enjoy your discussion, I must say that the whole cannot be greater than the sum of the parts. The parts make the whole or the whole consists of the parts. What you mean is understandable but the wording is unsound.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I must say that the whole cannot be greater than the sum of the parts.

It most certainly can. The Beatles are an illustration of just that. Alone they were very good but together they were great. This is a very old saying.

Heres a few examples

A house is worth more than the value of the individual pieces of wood, sheet rock, drywall, wiring, and other components that it consists of.

A Rembrandt painting is worth far more than the canvas and paint that were combined to make it.

Yes mathamaticly speaking its impossible. But were not talking math here are we?

[Odin]

It most certainly can. The Beatles are an illustration of just that. Alone they were very good but together they were great. This is a very old saying.

Heres a few examples

A house is worth more than the value of the individual pieces of wood, sheet rock, drywall, wiring, and other components that it consists of.

A Rembrandt painting is worth far more than the canvas and paint that were combined to make it.

Yes mathamaticly speaking its impossible. But were not talking math here are we?

:logic:

I enjoy Bijo's posts, he reminds me of a book I read on Zen from Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki (Had to look his name up, I only knew the initals DT), but Gawain gives very good examples of how the whole is greater then the parts.

[Gregoshi]

Bijo, the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts, at least as far as the human equation goes. Together, John, Paul, George and Ringo (why is Ringo always last?), created something bigger and better than their individual talents would suggest. You see the same thing in sports. Teams loaded with great individual talent (all-stars caliber) fail to win because team chemistry isn't right. Or a team with average players winning it all because they learned to play well together, elevating their team play to something beyond their individual talents. The Beatles were the same way, as Gawain suggests.

As for the point that others did things before the Beatles did, they may have. But the Beatles took those things and brought them to the masses. Fringe thinking or concepts suddenly became mainstream thanks(?) to the Beatles.

You may not like the Beatles as a group or individually, but I think they do deserve their dues.

Edit: Do'h, Gawain beat me to it.

[Bijo]

It most certainly can. The Beatles are an illustration of just that. Alone they were very good but together they were great.


It was not what you stated before it. What you stated is the following:


the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
The parts make the whole; the whole consists of the parts. It is undeniable. What you mean is value, beneficial effects of the whole.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The parts make the whole; the whole consists of the parts. It is undeniable. What you mean is value, beneficial effects of the whole.

What I said is what I meant. If you want to get semantical over it be my guest.

[Bijo]

If there were no semantics, would we be even discussing matters using semantics? It is important.

But don't let that get in the way of your main train of thought regarding giving the Beatles their due. I truthfully hope you are able to convince many more youngsters to give them their due :)