Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by bottlenecker, Sep 3, 2018.
It does now.
Many moons ago, a friend and I argued about who was more influential- the Beatles, or James Brown. He pointed to Brown's incredible catalog (much of which influenced the Beatles themselves) and the fact that a huge chunk of modern hip-hop/R&B was ripped off from Brown's work.
While you certainly can't argue that James Brown isn't one of the towering figures of modern music, I countered with the following (as Frodebro has pointed out above): if you completely disregard every note of their music the Beatles are still one of the most influential musical acts of all time.
Established the template for a musical act as a complete entity with all four members contributing, not just a backing unit for a frontman? Check.
Establishing the precedent for a musical act that writes their own tunes? Check.
Changing the role of the recording studio to become a creative tool in its own right and employing (and inventing) technology to make recordings that weren't simply recorded versions of a live performance? Check.
Establishing albums as their own art form and not just collections of singles with some filler tracks? Check.
Inspiring an entire generation to pick up guitars and make rock 'n' roll? Check.
Not to mention all the studio technology and techniques invented during Beatles sessions.
So, who else can match that CV without even starting to discuss their music?
Those 1,4,5 songs allowed for blue notes. Microtonal melody over western harmony was new to the whole world when it happened in american music. If you take that away for a more sophisticated chord progression, you trade away something deep for a catchy pop song. Don't write off 1,4,5s.
You guys seriously don't know what "overrated" means, huh?
Pretty much sums it up
Led Zeppelin was overrated. So there. These discussions are such dead ends.
Man, I don’t hate the Beatles either. Rubber Soul? Revolver? You kidding me? Absolutely peerless records.
But I also hold the opinion that Ray Davies songwriting could hold its own with Macca/Lennon/George in 64 (ok Ray only had two good songs, but they were really good songs) and 66-70. And he was in there in 65 too. And I don’t dismiss George’s contribution. That I think is underrated in the grand scheme of things.
But you had Dylan and Wilson on this side of the pond, and Townsend and Jagger/Richards coming into their own and having a ridiculous run from 68-72. And by 67 Hendrix and Cream and the Byrds (obviously earlier than that) and the Band and ZEP around the corner. And the Stax and Motown stuff along with Atlantic soul like Aretha. The SAN Fran stuff.
The Fabs sure influenced some of that. But lots of it I don’t really hear a direct songwriting influence. As mentioned above, their influence went beyond that. Maybe that’s where their most lasting impact will be.
None of this is gonna make me love the White Album. Some great songs. No doubt whatsoever. A cohesively great record? Not to my ears. Ymmv. But, lots of folks pretty much love the whole thing. I don’t necessarily think they’re wrong, I just can’t get behind it.
I do however think the Beatles legacy will continue beyond folks in my demographic. Their best stuff will transcend that I think. And there’s a lot of it.
Sheesh. What happened in the 1960s was the bestest ever.
Don’t you guys get it?
The Beatles are probably underrated.
I like them fine. I generally get bored by the end of a Beatles album. They did almagamate some fun influences, including R&B, blues, rockabilly and country. Great musicians all, including Ringo. Maybe genius.
Even if you are taking white pop musicians, I don’t know what separates them from The Beach Boys or rhe Stones to be honest. All here are overrated IMO. (I own multiple albums by each). How about the Kinks?
Dylan stands a little apart and above for me.
The first or greatest rock and roll band? Please.
I’m surprised at the emotion questioning that generates.
Edited - @Geoff738 - you and I must have been typing simultaneously. Spooky!
I don't think that makes the point of their music being more foundational that any other artist's ever. Not at all. They're very influential, yes.
Cool, just watched that whole interview with Jarvis.....
The point is that the Beatles wrote the book on rock 'n' roll that every band after them has followed in one way or another, even if they're not aware of it. It's like arguing that Chuck Berry or Hendrix didn't establish the template for rock guitar playing for the guys that came after them, whether you can hear them in the music or not. You may not drive a Model T to work, but the car you do drive owes a debt to Henry Ford and his ideas about how cars should be built.
I understand the being there perspective, but many don’t want to give them their due whether they were there or not & for various reasons...right or wrong. There are those who don’t wanna do their homework & face the music
"Waterloo Sunset" is as good a song as anything the Beatles ever did, Ray's problem was that there was only one of him.
"The people who are hung up on the Beatles' and the Sixties' dream missed the whole point when the Beatles' and the Sixties' dream became the point. Carrying the Beatles' or the Sixties' dream around all your life is like carrying the Second World War and Glenn Miller around. That's not to say you can't enjoy Glenn Miller or the Beatles, but to live in that dream is the twilight zone. It's not living now. It's an illusion. "
This was the statement:
"BEATLES, the musical foundation on which just about everything you listen to was probably built"
You said this statement was more true of the beatles than any other music act ever.
Do you think something you've just said about them influencing rock bands since the 1960s backs that up?
Great minds think alike and all that.
But Ray was doing it basically on his own while the Fabs had three dudes.
The Kinks though had stopped being reliable hit producers and were banned by the States from touring by 66. The recording budgets got smaller and you could tell. In some ways though it suited the songs more. The post 1970 Ray/Kinks output vs the solo Beatles is interesting. Take away George and I think Ray wins. But maybe I’m a Kinks freak so biased. Not maybe. I am a Kinks freak. Of the Brit Invasion Townsend maybe had the best run through the mid-80s.
But Paul with Wings also had a pretty good run and has tried on different genres to varying degrees of success. And good on him.
And I be been told he still puts on a cracking show live.
Here's something else for you guys to chew on for a bit: Had JFK not been assassinated in November 1962, there's a very strong likelihood that Beatlemania would not have been nearly the overwhelming sensation that it was. And that would have changed EVERYTHING.
That's how incredible their influence was!