the Beatles ... why NOT ?

[Reverend Stevee Ray]

Are there any real reasons to dislike the FAB FOUR ? And I think about

REAL reasons ... not reasons in that way like " I-want-to-be-a-ultra-cool-hipster-

and-I -only-listen-to-sixties-bands-nobody-knows-because-I'm-so-special ".

I guess the BEATLES are ( next to the WHO and the KINKS ) the most 

cool, stylish and awesome band ever. They played in the same league

as ELVIS ... and ELVIS is GOD you know. 

What do you think about ? 

 

[RJFait]

And if The Beatles denied the influences of other (mostly American bands) they'd have been liars. But, they didn't "Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been Elvis, there would not have been the Beatles." -John Lennon. McCartney lists The Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" as one of his biggest influences. "Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened ... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds" -Paul McCartney. Johnny Thunders is one of my biggest influences. I may have played slightly different without him, but I would have played... and it would have been dirty rock 'n' rocll. So, everything I've said (other than the Backstreet Boys exaggeration) still remains true. The 'scene' would have happened - with or without The Beatles.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Every town a rock and roll scene before the Beatles came along but almost everybody from these scenes is probably gonna admit that their influence helped evolve them.  And all the British bands had money behind them.  And if anybody was the Backstreet Boys, it was Herman's Hermits, not the Beatles.  EMI wanted the Beatles to sing songs that EMI provided for them and they refused.  Instead, they simply took this as a sign to write better tunes.  Sure, Brian Epstein got them to dress in suits but they were doing that before EMI got involved.  And the haircuts came before Brian Epstein got involved.  So I really don't see how manufactured you think they are.  Capitol Records originally didn't even want the Beatles to begin with and when they did get them, The Beatles already had their image, Capitol simply put money behind promoting a record that couldn't be denied.

RJFait said:

Are you serious? The point I was making was that The Beatles did not cause any Garage or Psych Scene and were only very briefly even a part of any. They were a POP band with EMI money backing them. They were the Backstreet Boys of their time.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

First off, the Wailers were turning into a pop band who did weddings by 1963 so there best years (up to that point) were behind them, so you can thank the Beatles, then the Sonics for giving them a kick in the butt.  The Leaves?  They used the Byrds as a blue print which of course leads us back to the Beatles.  The Thirteenth Floor Elevators would have never gotten started if their individual members hadn't been turned on by Stones and Kinks records (they all would have been in seperate bands still doing country, older blues and Buddy Holly tunes), which probably wouldn't have made it here if Beatles records hadn't come first.  And of course, Sky Saxon wanted to be bigger than the Stones and again, same as Thirteenth Floor Elevators, no Stones records in the States would have been hits if the Beatles hadn't opened the doors first.  DJs and Record labels didn't care about British records until the fans wanted them.  Fans didn't want them until "I Want to Hold Your Hand" made a big impact.  Even the Beach Boys probably would have been washed up if that record hadn't come along.  C'mon!  Even if the Beatles are gutless, bands that followed wouldn't have had anything to prove if that factor wasn't there. 

RJFait said:

The Fabulous Wailers, The Leaves, The 13th Floor Elevators and The Seeds would have been some heavy shit with or without the Beatles. Would the Beatles have been nearly as heavy without them? I find that very doubtful. The Beatles were a pop band covering American R&B when these bands were creating a genre. Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

matthew rosedon said:

Don't mean to upset anyone but I do wonder about the mental state of anyone who claims not to like the Beatles.  Apart from everything else they contributed to making the world a better place, without them I doubt very much whether this site would exist.  THEY CHANGED EVERYTHING.

[Don]

I look at this whole thread and go "huh?"  The Beatles were a band. They were four guys who made music. Lots of people dug their music. Their success opened possibilities in the minds of other budding (and some not so budding) musicians. That's it. Nothing more.

I find this whole "money" thing bogus. The studios tried to push lots of bands -- without success. Even the Beatles' film A Hard Day's Night goofs on this concept with the "Susan" sequence.

Frankly, to me, this sounds like the same nonsense as the "The 1% are to blame for my failure."  BS!  Make the best music you can. See if anyone wants to hear it. Stand on the street with a tin cup. Get an 8 track and distribute your music. Put on a Viking suit like Moondog did and sell it in the street.

Not raw enough for you?  OK. Neither, I suppose, is Cole Porter or the Gershwin brothers. Neither, perhaps, is Miles Davis.  There are a million styles of music. If it talks to your soul it is for you, if not its not. Why the need to bicker and compare. Why the need for the quasi-biblical "so and so begot so and so."

Sorry guys. As the gum popper at the mall says "Been there. Done that."

[RJFait]

Sorry Don, I get a bit heated sometimes. It's been established that the English record companies were throwing around a LOT of money. Record company money makes stars. How else can you explain Fergie and Ga-Ga?

Don said:

I look at this whole thread and go "huh?"  The Beatles were a band. They were four guys who made music. Lots of people dug their music. Their success opened possibilities in the minds of other budding (and some not so budding) musicians. That's it. Nothing more.

I find this whole "money" thing bogus. The studios tried to push lots of bands -- without success. Even the Beatles; film A Hard Day's Night goofs on this concept with the "Susan" sequence.

Frankly, to me, this sounds like the same nonsense as the "The 1% are to blame for my failure."  BS!  Make the best music you can. See if anyone wants to hear it. Stand on the street with a tin cup. Get an 8 track and distribute your music. Put on a Viking suit like Moondog did and sell it in the street.

Not raw enough for you?  OK. Neither is Cole Porter or the Gershwin brothers. Neither, perhaps, is Miles Davis.  There are a million styles of music. If it talks to your soul it is for you, if not its not. Why the need to bicker and compare. Why the need for biblical "so and so begot so and so."

Sorry guys. As the gum popper at the mall says "Been there. Done that."

[RJFait]

On an unrelated (?) note, one of my all time favorite quotes is actually from the TV show 'Frasier', "Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity." I'm sorry, that was uncalled for.

[Don]

But its true! I mean think about it... the average person, we are told, has an IQ of 100. Have you ever tried to have a conversation with a person with an IQ of 100? (And fully half of the population, I suppose, has less)

Too, pop music appeals mostly to teenagers.  Now since we all enter the world knowing nothing, and most people die knowing little more, how much can even a bright teenager know? How much discernment can they have?  Five years earlier mommy was telling them to clean up their room (maybe she still is doing so) and yet we expect them to know good art from bad?  Teenagers like boxed macaroni and cheese for gods sake!

Now many years ago teens -- pre-teens even! - were exposd to fine art, fine music, and fine literature.  Just exposed mind you. I.e., able to repeat what was "good" about it. But today even that foundation is gone.

When I listen to the lyrics of most of the brit bands I hear literacy. Mix that with teen angst and you can have the basis for art. But mix the nothingness of mall life and reality TV and video games with teen angst and whatuya got?

I won't even attempt to answer that RJF or your wife will tell you that I'm opinionated too. :D (and that's my wife's job!)

-don

RJFait said:

On an unrelated (?) note, one of my all time favorite quotes is actually from the TV show 'Frasier', "Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity." I'm sorry, that was uncalled for.

[RJFait]

I keep getting off track. My original point: The whole notion that "this band" couldn't have existed without "that band" is total horseshit. Maybe Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have been if it weren't for Pet Sounds. Maybe it would have been something better or just all together different. I'm constantly bombarded with the whole "punk started in American" "no it started in England" crap. Research the bands! In a very similar way to pyramids in Egypt, Mexico and Mesopotamia, it just happened. They built them because it was time for them to be built with no knowledge of the others having been built. Punk was created in many places simultaneously because it was time for punk to exist. I know 100s of people who have never met each other who were all part of the first hip crowd to call McDonalds "Mickey D's". I just thank God I wasn't one of them. If two cavemen hadn't come up with the idea to hit each other with sticks at about the same time, there would have only been one tribe left. OK, I think I've made my original point now.

RJFait said:

And if The Beatles denied the influences of other (mostly American bands) they'd have been liars. But, they didn't "Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been Elvis, there would not have been the Beatles." -John Lennon. McCartney lists The Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" as one of his biggest influences. "Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened ... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds" -Paul McCartney. Johnny Thunders is one of my biggest influences. I may have played slightly different without him, but I would have played... and it would have been dirty rock 'n' rocll. So, everything I've said (other than the Backstreet Boys exaggeration) still remains true. The 'scene' would have happened - with or without The Beatles.

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

A whole lotta stuff would have been different but the sixties scene would have been made up of more bands like the Fugs and the Holy Modal Rounders and a lot more folk groups.  Other bands would have been going for a more rootsier blues sound than comercializing it.  Bands like the Bobby Fuller Four would have been bigger and Paul Revere and the Raiders would have stayed true to their New Orleans meets Jerry Lee Lewis sound.  Link Wray would be getting more credit instead of Dave Davies for a dirty sound.  You can deny the Beatles and the rest of the "Invasion" all you want but facts are facts and a lot of the scenes wouldn't exist the way we know them if certain circumstances didn't happen.

[Old School Hero]

Plus I've read countless 60's Garage band interviews...I read it time and time again ''We saw the Beatles on television and we just knew we had to start a band.''

[Don]

Once we settle this can we move on another equally important, but never quite resolved issue... Just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

:D~

-don

[matthew rosedon]

As my original post has been swept up in recent comments I thought I'd respond:

Firstly, the suggestion that EMI throwing money at the Beatles was responsible for their success.  As anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Beatles knows, Brian Epstein was rejected by every major London record label.  In desperation, and as a last chance, he turned to an EMI subsidiary called Parlophone who were known solely, if at all, for producing comedy albums.  The producer of those said comedy albums was, by happy accident, one Mr George Martin - the rest is history.  Similarly, as others have pointed out, Capitol was not interested hence the releases on VJ and Swan before their hand was forced by 'I Want To Hold Your Hand'.  I'm not sure how that constitutes 'buying' success.

One of the posts politely accuses me of ignoring the point that black musicians were doing it first.  Again, anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of popular music knows this to be correct.  The hardline argument tends to say that 'white' music is stolen from 'black' music.  I don't want to get into that here but it is of course true to say that 'white' music is massively indebted to 'black' music.  In all their early interviews, the Beatles acknowledged that debt; they refused to play to segregated audiences.  The Stones were allowed to choose a guest on 'Shindig' (I think); they chose Howlin' Wolf (imagine the shock of that on mainstream US TV at the time); here in the UK Dusty Springfield used her influence to promote a Motown TV special at a time when Motown was barely established here.  It was the first time that a programme consisting of so many black artists had been shown on UK TV.  Now only a fool would say that makes amends for hundreds of years of slavery/imperialist oppression (UK) or slavery/racial segregation (US) but it's a step, an important step, a step in the right direction and a journey of 1000 miles etc. etc.

The Beatles picked up guitars because of Elvis.  Thousands of US garage bands picked up guitars because of the Beatles/Stones/British Invasion and those artists that had already picked up their guitars upped their game e.g. Beach Boys, Dylan, McGuinn etc.  The Beatles didn't block anybodies career, they were, like all great artists, about possibility and hope and about the excitement that lies behind all great art.  Don't be dismissive of teenage girls screaming because they were helping to tilt the word on its axis - John Lee Hooker got it right - 'the men don't know but the little girls understand'. 

I was accused of hyperbole by saying the Beatles changed everything.  I stand by that statement.  In fact, I will go further and say that their artistic achievement is on a par with Shakespeare or Dickens or Picasso or Rembrandt or Mozart.  There I've said it.  Great art does change everything and does make the world a better place.

As an Englishman I am immensely proud that this small island was responsible for The Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks, The Who, The Yardbirds etc (not so proud of Herman's Hermits however)  The downside of that is I get a bit defensive when people attack 'our' music.  I am also a firm believer that people are entitled to their own opinion.  However, I draw the line when words like gutless, mediocre, and Backstreet Boys of their day are used in conjuction with the Fab Four or, even worse, when they're patronisingly dismissed as being an insignificant pop combo who created, by some fluke, the odd hummable ditty.  That I'm afraid can only be answered by meeting said proponents of such nonsense on the field of honour at dawn with the weapon of your choice - swords, pistols, or Phil Collins CDs used like Oddjob in 'Goldfinger'.

But you know this is what I love about this site - the breadth of opinion and the passion shown.  You even get shout outs for Haydn and Bach on here.  Now if someone can start a Beethoven v Shadows of Knight thread we'll really see some sparks fly.

Stay cool everybody.  

 

[Don]

I highly value that comment Matthew.  Fact is people need to make a distinction even when there is little difference, and disagreeing with popular opinion is one way for us to set ourselves apart.  That's human nature. If loving humanity is a worthwhile thing (and we're repeatedly told that it is) then we need to love people as they are not as we wish they were.

I could easily get into a discussion of current music and that of the baroque, classical and romantic composers. Hell, we could include jazz, big band, and pre-rock pop too!

Knowledge to me means expanding ones horizons not shrinking them.  But as P.D. James once pointed out shrinking one's world somehow makes people feel safer. There it is again: Human nature. Bless the little children! :)

-don

matthew rosedon said:

As my original post has been swept up in recent comments I thought I'd respond:

Firstly... (little snip) ;-)

But you know this is what I love about this site - the breadth of opinion and the passion shown.  You even get shout outs for Haydn and Bach on here.  Now if someone can start a Beethoven v Shadows of Knight thread we'll really see some sparks fly.

Stay cool everybody.  

 

[matthew rosedon]

Thanks Don - I couldn't agree more.  It's about trying to embrace rathing than rushing to reject.  I've never understood the argument that says you have to choose between Martha & the Vandellas or Mozart.  It's all there for all of us to enjoy.  In the end disputes over whether the Seeds were better than the Beatles are just playground squabbles.  Let's all just keep our ears open

 
Don said:

I highly value that comment Matthew.  Fact is people need to make a distinction even when there is little difference, and disagreeing with popular opinion is one way for us to set ourselves apart.  That's human nature. If loving humanity is a worthwhile thing (and we're repeatedly told that it is) then we need to love people as they are not as we wish they were.

I could easily get into a discussion of current music and that of the baroque, classical and romantic composers. Hell, we could include jazz, big band, and pre-rock pop too!

Knowledge to me means expanding ones horizons not shrinking them.  But as P.D. James once pointed out shrinking one's world somehow makes people feel safer. There it is again: Human nature. Bless the little children! :)

-don

matthew rosedon said:

As my original post has been swept up in recent comments I thought I'd respond:

Firstly... (little snip) ;-)

But you know this is what I love about this site - the breadth of opinion and the passion shown.  You even get shout outs for Haydn and Bach on here.  Now if someone can start a Beethoven v Shadows of Knight thread we'll really see some sparks fly.

Stay cool everybody.