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 ? 

 

[Thane Cesar]

I think some one missed the point about the EMI thing. Yes the Beatles were turned down, but when finally sign to a big corp, you do get those benefits.

Doesn't mean thatb they weren't talented, it just means they have an advantage over other bands.

But I do think people tend to forget that they were technically a boy band, the way they were promoted (not the way that they were fairly bright and could ad lib or could write their own stuff).

However Roseden, you attribute "What the men don't know..." to JLH, that's not right, the song is Back Door Man, written by the Blues himself W Dixon.

And my point about black folk doing it before, is more a comment on Lennons quote "Before Elvis", which maybe his opinion, but isn't mine. Remember the Comets?

If you really believe that the Beatles changed everything, well, it's your opinion and I'm not going to try and change that, but think about that statement.

A few years after the Beatles split Lennon was getting called an "Asshole with a tampax on his head".

[matthew rosedon]

Apologies about misattribution of Back Door Man - we all have something to learn (although I could have sworn Hooker recorded it at some point even if he didn't write it).

I wasn't disagreeing with you about black music.  In fact, I totally agree - it's just that many white people have given credit where credit is due and that Lennon's quote about Elvis was a typical Lennon soundbite.  However, there are plenty of examples of him giving credit to black artists.

As for the Beatles, well, of course anyone can like or dislike their music as they see fit.  What I was trying to say that it is much harder to deny their cultural significance and their impact.

  
Thane Cesar said:

I think some one missed the point about the EMI thing. Yes the Beatles were turned down, but when finally sign to a big corp, you do get those benefits.

Doesn't mean thatb they weren't talented, it just means they have an advantage over other bands.

But I do think people tend to forget that they were technically a boy band, the way they were promoted (not the way that they were fairly bright and could ad lib or could write their own stuff).

However Roseden, you attribute "What the men don't know..." to JLH, that's not right, the song is Back Door Man, written by the Blues himself W Dixon.

And my point about black folk doing it before, is more a comment on Lennons quote "Before Elvis", which maybe his opinion, but isn't mine. Remember the Comets?

If you really believe that the Beatles changed everything, well, it's your opinion and I'm not going to try and change that, but think about that statement.

A few years after the Beatles split Lennon was getting called an "Asshole with a tampax on his head".

[Thane Cesar]

I would say tho' that at times that can be overstated. All You Need Is Love didn't end the Vietnam war. And the political left has been quite revisionistic about Lennons acheivements, as well as the "uptight, hetro, world of white rock n roll" have been quite nasty about Yoko.

Also people forget that because of the corporate backing they had, they could absorb influences into their music, record and release them, before the people who influenced them could release their own records (just ask Donovan).

[Don]

TC, what you are describing has a name:  LIFE.  Yes life.  In the rain forest vines grow up the trunk of a tree, steals its light, and eventually the tree gets stunted, withers and sometimes dies.  Down below a similar game is being played under and around every rotting carcass. Want to enter that world? Then you'd better arm yourself at least with knowledge and perhaps a rifle.

In other words "fairness" is a construct. And as such it exists only so far as law and custom requires and even then only in the light and when enough people care  (i.e, enough people are personally effected) to take notice.

The Beatles were living things. As was, as a corporate entity, EMI. As is each radio station. As is each consumer of the product of music.

By this I an not saying that ethics should not apply. In my personal life I do my best to make sure that they do. But when I enter the forest it is not with a bible or a sophomore year philosophy book. It is with street smarts (jungle smarts?) and some times, quite literally, a gun.

That the world of art is so effected is nothing new. As Michelangelo. Ask Bach.

and as to their music "changing the world"... Yes it did. If you view the world not as a singular entity or even as the body politic, but as the people individualy. I.e., the way each person in reality views him/herself.

-don

Thane Cesar said:

...because of the corporate backing they had, they could absorb influences into their music, record and release them, before the people who influenced them could release their own records (just ask Donovan).

[matthew rosedon]

You're right - a pop song won't end a war but it can be part of a cultural shift that alters the zeitgeist and allows opposition to the war to grow.  I would argue that the Beatles (and of course many others) contibuted significantly to that shift.  The file the FBI kept on Lennon showed at least some were worried.

While I also accept your second point, without the sheer quality of what they produced the corporate backing would have been meaningless (and almost certainly not have existed).

This debate has drifted some distance from the original thread.  In the end the music will endure and these cultural issues will be historical footnotes.

Thane Cesar said:

I would say tho' that at times that can be overstated. All You Need Is Love didn't end the Vietnam war. And the political left has been quite revisionistic about Lennons acheivements, as well as the "uptight, hetro, world of white rock n roll" have been quite nasty about Yoko.

Also people forget that because of the corporate backing they had, they could absorb influences into their music, record and release them, before the people who influenced them could release their own records (just ask Donovan).

[Thane Cesar]

I wouldn't read too much into Lennon's FBI file. The peace activist Lennon is a bit of a myth, even his own son said that Lennon was a hypocrite.

Lots of people had FBI files, the MC5, and while they were a cool band, they were to para phase Lemmy "Dumb as Fuck".

Consider the lyrics to Imagine, and how much wealth he had.

 

I like the tunes, but the rest of it... Natch.

[Thane Cesar]

Don, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. But I was making the point that the Beatles were in a position to (basically) take credit for something that wasn't their idea.

 

It goes back to the revisionism that has surrounded the Beatles since Lennons death. Would we really be having this debate if Lennon hadn't been killed. The reason Chapman shot him was he believed him to be a fake and a hypocrite. Which could be reasonably argued (not to say he deserved to get shot).

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

I'm probably going to be one of few that agree with you that Beatles changed everything and also point that you got misinterpreted.  They didn't exactly change the world but they had a hand in how many starting viewing it. They changed the way everybody went about carrying on their careers.  A lot of musicians looked at them as a challenge.  If not for them,  a lot of kids would have turning to modern jazz as a form of sophisticated music instead of updating rock.  Classical would have had a much bigger influence.  Rootsier blues and country groups would have been formed instead of garage bands.  AND that's the other thing, for a group like the Sonics to write the songs they did, for an attitude of "we don't want to sound like the Beatles", wouldn't a Beatles have to exist in order to have an anti-Beatles exist?  The Beatles should get a lot of credit as the one who changed the way we think.

matthew rosedon said:

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.  

 

[matthew rosedon]

Thank you - you said it better than I managed.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I'm probably going to be one of few that agree with you that Beatles changed everything and also point that you got misinterpreted.  They didn't exactly change the world but they had a hand in how many starting viewing it. They changed the way everybody went about carrying on their careers.  A lot of musicians looked at them as a challenge.  If not for them,  a lot of kids would have turning to modern jazz as a form of sophisticated music instead of updating rock.  Classical would have had a much bigger influence.  Rootsier blues and country groups would have been formed instead of garage bands.  AND that's the other thing, for a group like the Sonics to write the songs they did, for an attitude of "we don't want to sound like the Beatles", wouldn't a Beatles have to exist in order to have an anti-Beatles exist?  The Beatles should get a lot of credit as the one who changed the way we think.

matthew rosedon said:

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.  

 

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

I think that last line you wrote was a little false.  Maybe in terms of Hendrix, Cream and Pink Floyd (and a lot of the lesser known bands like Creation) did they get a "psychedelic" record like REVOLVER released before the public heard of those bands that were playing London clubs.  But most of the influences that creeped onto earlier albums came from stuff the Beatles heard on records.  A lot of people just didn't purchase those records until after hearing a Beatles record or could even find them due to not having the distribution that EMI and Capitol had.  Donovan can believe what he wants.  He HAD corporate backing.  His label was just slower in releasing his stuff. 

Thane Cesar said:

Also people forget that because of the corporate backing they had, they could absorb influences into their music, record and release them, before the people who influenced them could release their own records (just ask Donovan).

[RJFait]

That last line is absolutely true but probably not merely a money thing. In the last 10 years, McCartney has started coming clean about a lot of stuff. Not only is Lucy in the Sky about LSD, but they also heard the Floyd in the room next door at Apple, and re-wrote Point Me at the Sky into the Lucy melody line. 

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I think that last line you wrote was a little false.  Maybe in terms of Hendrix, Cream and Pink Floyd (and a lot of the lesser known bands like Creation) did they get a "psychedelic" record like REVOLVER released before the public heard of those bands that were playing London clubs.  But most of the influences that creeped onto earlier albums came from stuff the Beatles heard on records.  A lot of people just didn't purchase those records until after hearing a Beatles record or could even find them due to not having the distribution that EMI and Capitol had.  Donovan can believe what he wants.  He HAD corporate backing.  His label was just slower in releasing his stuff. 

Thane Cesar said:

Also people forget that because of the corporate backing they had, they could absorb influences into their music, record and release them, before the people who influenced them could release their own records (just ask Donovan).

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

Well, a little false and a little true.  VEry true in terms of Pink Floyd and whatever else was going on in "Swingin'" London.  But i don't believe it for anything leading up to Rubber Soul.  Anything you heard on that record, you already heard on other records by other people.  Dylan, the Byrds, Lovin' Spoonful, Stones, Kinks, Yardbirds....they beat the Beatles to the punch that year.  Revolver and Sgt. Pepper is probably the only time they were able to take in anything that influenced them and release it before anybody had a chance to.  As far as Donovan is concerned though, if that's in reference to him teaching Lennon his picking style on guitar while in India, that's his own fault.  I really can't recall any Donovan records from '68 that he played anything that influenced Dear Prudence or other White album songs.  They also took forever to record that album (in terms of 60s studio time) and it had less going on than Sgt. Pepper.  Donovan had plenty of time to release an album before the Beatles could get one out.  In fact I think he did.  Hurdy Gurdy Man came out much earlier in 1968.

RJFait said:

That last line is absolutely true but probably not merely a money thing. In the last 10 years, McCartney has started coming clean about a lot of stuff. Not only is Lucy in the Sky about LSD, but they also heard the Floyd in the room next door at Apple, and re-wrote Point Me at the Sky into the Lucy melody line. 

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I think that last line you wrote was a little false.  Maybe in terms of Hendrix, Cream and Pink Floyd (and a lot of the lesser known bands like Creation) did they get a "psychedelic" record like REVOLVER released before the public heard of those bands that were playing London clubs.  But most of the influences that creeped onto earlier albums came from stuff the Beatles heard on records.  A lot of people just didn't purchase those records until after hearing a Beatles record or could even find them due to not having the distribution that EMI and Capitol had.  Donovan can believe what he wants.  He HAD corporate backing.  His label was just slower in releasing his stuff. 

Thane Cesar said:

Also people forget that because of the corporate backing they had, they could absorb influences into their music, record and release them, before the people who influenced them could release their own records (just ask Donovan).