Thanks for your responses Sheena, Jerry, Sean ,Paul, and Dane. The intent of the thread was to try to see if we could hold a universally beloved band like the Beatles to the same standards that we do music today, not really do we like the Beatles or not. In this thread, I was hopefull that I could gain a greater insight about what other people thought when they experience music, and decided to use the fab four as an example, since they seem to be the benchmark of popular music. At the same time, I was trying to see if by looking at this benchmark in a different light, if those same thought processes we use when experiencing new music would appear and be recognized. Seeing what triggers the responses can perhaps make me understand why I immediately get turned off by something without giving it a chance or even a listen. I find this quality about myself to be annoying and limiting, and have consequently missed out on a lot of great music. I also don't want to spend the rest of my life thinking that there will never be another this and that so why bother. Sorry, maybe my trying to conduct a psychological experiment here was a bad idea, but I thought since this group had such a large number of folks in it who love the same bands I do for the same reasons, it might have been valueable to at least run it up the flagpole. I would still appreciate anyones input on the subject
Ok, now for some fun, yes, "Beth" by Kiss is one of the cheesiest songs ever, this tune makes Air Supply and Christopher Cross sound like AC-DC. I heard a muzak verswion of "Beth" in a supermarket once, and it really didn't sound any different. Having said that, Kiss are by far the kings of cheese, but anyone who can put out 25 or more records all about partying and having sex have to be given their props. That said, I like Kiss up to the point where Ace Freheley was no longer with them, but do like their earlier stuff. Gene Simmons wrote the book on "selling out"(he may have written more than that), yet somehow is looked at in a good light for being "all about the money".
And yes, every band has their cheese tunes, incuding our beloved, or behated Beatles.
Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
Last edited by whojamfan on Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
The Vieux Boulogne of the cheese family.wayang wrote:Come on, now...what about THIS guy?
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
I don't think that they killed rock and roll. I think that they acted as a catalyst to move it into its next phases and that they did open the doors stylistically so that there were a number of sub-genres that became accepted as rock too. Granted no band was infallible, and yes I'm a Beatles fan. But also, part of this becomes an argument of apples and oranges.
Music was really starting to get bad in the early '60's with few saving graces. With all of the Dick Clark look-alikes with shellacked hair from the Philly area and so on, there was little in the ways of things moving forward. It was stagnation despite a few classics. Berry was the first George Thorogood: just about everything sounded the same and he was about to get sent up on a Mann Act violation. Elvis came back from the army and suddenly he was getting soft in the Blue Hawaiian sun, and not doing much of the barn burning that he was when he went into Uncle Sam's employ. Little Richard found religion. Buddy Holly and Eddie Cochran were dead and Gene Vincent was sidelined in the same accident that took Cochran. You can at least say this: the Beatles were NOT Pat Boone. They had some respect for these artists having been fans before players. They had been doing those songs live after figuring them out the way that people did before Ulimate-Guitar.com.
Regarding the Beatles being held to some of the same standards as today, what about the ever-evolving image of Green Day? They've just cut a new album under the moniker of the Foxboro Hottubs and packaged it to look like a cheesy '60's era big-label tax write-off. All bands deal with detractors. I think that the fact that the Beatles wrote their own material is certainly a step in the right direction and with the combination of Lennon, McCartney, Dylan, Jagger, Richards, and Wilson, a bar was set that determined a degree of artistic integrity and authenticity that has never come down.
Did the Beatles "sell out"? Probably. I think that there comes a point with a lot of bands where push comes to shove and you have to make some compromises. Most bands in that era had uniforms, whether it was the striped shirts and white pants of the Beach Boys, or the suits of the Beatles. What about the Who? They were branded as being the "true Mod band." By some of accounts, they weren't that Mod and Roger certainly wasn't the "Face" that he was set out to be in their early days. So, do we add the Who to this list of sell-outs too? They even went so far as to make a satirical album all about it.
Regarding their music being "corporate ****", sure it was marketed...but only after a year of Capitol not marketing them. Much of the music back then was pushed onto the public via the airwaves...where else was it going to come from? I think that radio then and today are two completely different beasts. There seem to have been fewer indie stations that could play material other than top 40 songs and there were fewer options across the dial in the '60's. Today, there are all sorts of options, with stations that cater to all different tastes. Perhaps that is the most frustrating part of radio today and the "corporate ****": we're still dominated by what they tell us is good despite our effort to be different.
We judge many bands today on live performance...rightly so. Again though, how much have things changed technologically? How much are today's shows about spectacle and how much are they about music? I think that if they were recording today, then they would have been able to take the material on the road. After 8 years of playing gigs, maybe they just felt like it was time to call it a day. Bands go into hiatus where they don't tour for a while. I look back to the Who again. Or perhaps even the Rolling Stones who did the exact same thing, going off the road in late '66 and not touring again for a few years, making music only in the studio, etc.
Being in the spotlight the way that the Beatles were often puts you into contact with the press, no? Then in the interviews that you have to do, you're inevitably asked about your thoughts regarding the state of current events. You respond with things that make sense to you. It's natural for artists, actors, musicians and many others to provide commentary, welcome or not, on the state of the world from their perspective. And whether that perspective is based on a view from a posh home outside of London or not doesn't make it any less valid. I doubt that they said things simply for the press. They had enough of that and the reactions over John's comments about religion show a lack of wanting to have to constantly justify quotes.
I don't think that they would've been run out of the country at all. I think that if things were like they are today, they would have found their niche with other Brit-Pop bands, sold a respectable amount of albums and possible toured once in a while, while playing festivals in England and Europe. I doubt that they would have achieved the super-star status that they did, but the world was different back then and there were far fewer outlets for culture. When the Ed Sullivan Show was on, you could make a safe bet that if your neighbor had a TV, then it was probably on that. It wasn't like today with hundreds of options, all still force fed to our willing eyes and ears.
They made mistakes, yes. They cut some material that was ****. But how much better is their **** than some current artists' best?
Music was really starting to get bad in the early '60's with few saving graces. With all of the Dick Clark look-alikes with shellacked hair from the Philly area and so on, there was little in the ways of things moving forward. It was stagnation despite a few classics. Berry was the first George Thorogood: just about everything sounded the same and he was about to get sent up on a Mann Act violation. Elvis came back from the army and suddenly he was getting soft in the Blue Hawaiian sun, and not doing much of the barn burning that he was when he went into Uncle Sam's employ. Little Richard found religion. Buddy Holly and Eddie Cochran were dead and Gene Vincent was sidelined in the same accident that took Cochran. You can at least say this: the Beatles were NOT Pat Boone. They had some respect for these artists having been fans before players. They had been doing those songs live after figuring them out the way that people did before Ulimate-Guitar.com.
Regarding the Beatles being held to some of the same standards as today, what about the ever-evolving image of Green Day? They've just cut a new album under the moniker of the Foxboro Hottubs and packaged it to look like a cheesy '60's era big-label tax write-off. All bands deal with detractors. I think that the fact that the Beatles wrote their own material is certainly a step in the right direction and with the combination of Lennon, McCartney, Dylan, Jagger, Richards, and Wilson, a bar was set that determined a degree of artistic integrity and authenticity that has never come down.
Did the Beatles "sell out"? Probably. I think that there comes a point with a lot of bands where push comes to shove and you have to make some compromises. Most bands in that era had uniforms, whether it was the striped shirts and white pants of the Beach Boys, or the suits of the Beatles. What about the Who? They were branded as being the "true Mod band." By some of accounts, they weren't that Mod and Roger certainly wasn't the "Face" that he was set out to be in their early days. So, do we add the Who to this list of sell-outs too? They even went so far as to make a satirical album all about it.
Regarding their music being "corporate ****", sure it was marketed...but only after a year of Capitol not marketing them. Much of the music back then was pushed onto the public via the airwaves...where else was it going to come from? I think that radio then and today are two completely different beasts. There seem to have been fewer indie stations that could play material other than top 40 songs and there were fewer options across the dial in the '60's. Today, there are all sorts of options, with stations that cater to all different tastes. Perhaps that is the most frustrating part of radio today and the "corporate ****": we're still dominated by what they tell us is good despite our effort to be different.
We judge many bands today on live performance...rightly so. Again though, how much have things changed technologically? How much are today's shows about spectacle and how much are they about music? I think that if they were recording today, then they would have been able to take the material on the road. After 8 years of playing gigs, maybe they just felt like it was time to call it a day. Bands go into hiatus where they don't tour for a while. I look back to the Who again. Or perhaps even the Rolling Stones who did the exact same thing, going off the road in late '66 and not touring again for a few years, making music only in the studio, etc.
Being in the spotlight the way that the Beatles were often puts you into contact with the press, no? Then in the interviews that you have to do, you're inevitably asked about your thoughts regarding the state of current events. You respond with things that make sense to you. It's natural for artists, actors, musicians and many others to provide commentary, welcome or not, on the state of the world from their perspective. And whether that perspective is based on a view from a posh home outside of London or not doesn't make it any less valid. I doubt that they said things simply for the press. They had enough of that and the reactions over John's comments about religion show a lack of wanting to have to constantly justify quotes.
I don't think that they would've been run out of the country at all. I think that if things were like they are today, they would have found their niche with other Brit-Pop bands, sold a respectable amount of albums and possible toured once in a while, while playing festivals in England and Europe. I doubt that they would have achieved the super-star status that they did, but the world was different back then and there were far fewer outlets for culture. When the Ed Sullivan Show was on, you could make a safe bet that if your neighbor had a TV, then it was probably on that. It wasn't like today with hundreds of options, all still force fed to our willing eyes and ears.
They made mistakes, yes. They cut some material that was ****. But how much better is their **** than some current artists' best?
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
Great post Matthew, lots of specific explanations to the "different" way I presented the Beatles, and appreciate your take on it.
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
I think maybe at this point it would be difficult to look at this question objectively. Those who grew up with the actual Beatles and those who grew up with the records I think are still too close to the whole package to effectively answer the questions. They represent so much more than their body of work to these two generations that It probably cannot be discussed without prejudice one way or the other. I have never met anyone who is indifferent to the Beatles, as they really like them, or really don't.
I wasn't so much looking for a defender of Beatledom(although the posts were fantastic) as I was some insight on terms and labels we attach to things that we're not in to,for whatever reason. Unfortunately, electric music has only been aroud a few generations, and in that short time, has exploded like an atom bomb. Perhaps 20 or 30 years from now, this question can be answered by people who didn't grow up with them on the Ed Sullivan show, or part of their older siblings or parents record collection. Thank you all for your answers, and still feel free to comment on this thread.
I wasn't so much looking for a defender of Beatledom(although the posts were fantastic) as I was some insight on terms and labels we attach to things that we're not in to,for whatever reason. Unfortunately, electric music has only been aroud a few generations, and in that short time, has exploded like an atom bomb. Perhaps 20 or 30 years from now, this question can be answered by people who didn't grow up with them on the Ed Sullivan show, or part of their older siblings or parents record collection. Thank you all for your answers, and still feel free to comment on this thread.
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
Wow, these are good essays! So much better than much of what reads in the "rock press". One thing that's worth considering is that what actually happens is often way different that what was intended. Big stars are often perceived as steely careerists who clawed their way to the top through ruthless manipulation of... everything, and I dunno, maybe that WAS true of Madonna! But really I think most people just start out trying to make some music. What happens after that is combination of fate, the cultural context, the ability of the artist to stay focused, etc., etc. "Right place at the right time" seems to be utterly important for everybody! Once somebody is successful there's a tendency to assume that the success was inevitable and deliberate but only the most deluded artists (and there are many!) would think it's all down to their brilliant ideas and sexy moves or whatever. Yet reviewers and the public seem to take that view all the time! Like there's all this control, and a straight line between action and reaction. Mostly, you have a huge opportunity to be ignored. The hokey myths around showbiz seem to have an enduring appeal, and many established artists seem to become suckers for that junk too, leading to a weird partial fulfillment of these very notions. But for the most part, I take the "aww, give 'em a break" view, because pulling off any kind of music career is so unlikely. On the other hand, a trap door would be useful for a large proportion of the current crop of commercial music stars...or maybe their managers. No matter how calculated any 60s act may look now, there's no contest for how drastically more fake and manipulated it is now.
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
Great insight from the pro end of things, Mitch, thank you. Yes, stuff today seems more commercial, and manufactured, but so much can be done in the studio these days that even the crummiest of bands can be fixed and polished with pro tools. Consequently, everything has this weird, almost liquid like sound to it, especially distorted guitars, that music has a different fidelity issue(for lack of a better way to put it)today than it did pre mid 90s. So much of it just sounds inorganic. Now its like throw the ingredients in the computer, hit the "Radio Friendly" button, and out comes the a sound exactly like the latest hit. This isn't just reserved for "rockish" type bands, as country music has suffered this fate as well.
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
Oh man, country music is so weird-sounding now! I think the best place to "appreciate" this may be in the toilet at Cracker Barrel, where that latest hollow-sound hyper-tuned unfortunate cover of some good song like Dang Me can be heard in what is somehow the perfect setting! I hear this and think "somebody thinks this is a good idea??" but then I realize they are laughing all the way to the bank, so what do I know? Pop music recording has been sort of unreal for 50 years but we have certainly reached a stage where it really sounds like it's happening in a vacuum.
And of course, totally cool stuff is always happening if you can only find it or hear about it...
About distorted guitars- one of the odder developments of recent times is what I call "carpet fuzz"- superoverdrive tones with the guitar being strummed as though it's an acoustic! About all you can do with this is have a mostly-empty verse and then the big blast of a chorus with 4+ of these funny white noise power- (but strangely powerless) chord guitars. I mean, this is just fine but it sure has been done to death.
Some of these production styles will be good fodder for future laughs, though!
And of course, totally cool stuff is always happening if you can only find it or hear about it...
About distorted guitars- one of the odder developments of recent times is what I call "carpet fuzz"- superoverdrive tones with the guitar being strummed as though it's an acoustic! About all you can do with this is have a mostly-empty verse and then the big blast of a chorus with 4+ of these funny white noise power- (but strangely powerless) chord guitars. I mean, this is just fine but it sure has been done to death.
Some of these production styles will be good fodder for future laughs, though!
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
As a Beatles fan, I'm not sure I can add a fair comment. At 40 years old, I missed the Beatles as a band. But I became a fan at a very early age. I look at my boys, 10, 8 and 3. The two older ones have a bunch of favorite Beatles songs, and I don't push it on them. I merely expose them (they love the Ramones, too, as well as Linkin Park).
For me, I don't see how a band can "sell out". I just don't understand the term. The way I look at it as a fan, if a bunch of people get together and make music, and aspire to record, and then sell and profit off of their art, then they have sold out. That's the point, and I see it as an integral part of the whole concept of being a recording artist. The degree to which someone chooses to market themselves may be different. For years, you would never hear a Beatles song in a commercial. Now they have licensed the songs out and you hear them all the time for all sorts of products. Is that selling out, or just expanding the marketing of their music --- all of which is designed to increase profits. Nothing wrong with it, but not "selling out", either.
I think about the term "selling out" as a more personal one. When REM signed to Warner Brothers, the screams of selling out were loud. Why? I was excited because now I knew that I'd get at least 5 more albums out of them, and so many bands that were just as good couldn't produce more than 2. I think that in the case of REM, and from what I understand, Green Day faced a similar situation, the hard-core fans wanted the music all to themselves. Nobody really paid attention to their favorite bands, and that was cool. To think that "selling out" was one step closer to Muszak was just something that could not be tolerated!
I'd be curious to hear more from you, Mitch, because you are exposed to the hopes and dreams of bands everyday. Are their career goals consistent with their attitude toward the industry? Is there a struggle with "I want to be highly successful and I'll never sell-out?"
And, yes, The Beatles were good enough to get a pass on just about anything!
For me, I don't see how a band can "sell out". I just don't understand the term. The way I look at it as a fan, if a bunch of people get together and make music, and aspire to record, and then sell and profit off of their art, then they have sold out. That's the point, and I see it as an integral part of the whole concept of being a recording artist. The degree to which someone chooses to market themselves may be different. For years, you would never hear a Beatles song in a commercial. Now they have licensed the songs out and you hear them all the time for all sorts of products. Is that selling out, or just expanding the marketing of their music --- all of which is designed to increase profits. Nothing wrong with it, but not "selling out", either.
I think about the term "selling out" as a more personal one. When REM signed to Warner Brothers, the screams of selling out were loud. Why? I was excited because now I knew that I'd get at least 5 more albums out of them, and so many bands that were just as good couldn't produce more than 2. I think that in the case of REM, and from what I understand, Green Day faced a similar situation, the hard-core fans wanted the music all to themselves. Nobody really paid attention to their favorite bands, and that was cool. To think that "selling out" was one step closer to Muszak was just something that could not be tolerated!
I'd be curious to hear more from you, Mitch, because you are exposed to the hopes and dreams of bands everyday. Are their career goals consistent with their attitude toward the industry? Is there a struggle with "I want to be highly successful and I'll never sell-out?"
And, yes, The Beatles were good enough to get a pass on just about anything!
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
This is a good point- the term "sell out" is slung around rather recklessly, I think. The whole model of paying a little fee at the door of a club and paying what is after all a pretty humble sum to own recordings is completely reasonable, I think, and mainly, we would never have heard most of our favorites if they hadn't been able to pay the bills with their music, at least for awhile.
I can't really think of a band who were great and then they decided to change everything for the sake of making money and then made horrible records which went to #1. (However, a perfect example may exist! Which may involve Eric Carmen, oops.) I mean, of course there are always cheesy acts having great success but that usually is just a reflection of the fact that lots of people have cheesy tastes!
In the late 90s and early 2000s it did seem to me that bands talked more about "radio" and stuff like that and I found it sort of depressing. Because while it is true that many musicians would do well to pay more attention to their business affairs, what was happening here was a sort of change of attitude, a willingness to have somebody tell them what to do which I think is sort of anathema to the whole rock and roll thing! It also suggested they didn't really have any ideas, they just liked some notion of "rock" as a lifestyle or something vague like that. Ugh.
I think the bands started feeling like it was all a bit hopeless, which maybe it was, but the answer is always to be creative and bold, not worried! I guess what I'm saying is, if a musician "sells out", he or she probably does that by losing heart before they ever get anywhere. It's not financial, it's about whether or not somebody loves music enough to be a "lifer", and what that means specifically doesn't matter, but I think anybody who keeps at it forever can't possibly sell out.
It was very correct for George H., as a scruffy nobody, to tell George M. that he didn't like his tie! No sellout possibilities there.
Anyway, this whole issue has been around a long time and was addressed perfectly by the Who on (my favorite) Who record The Who Sell Out!
As some of you know, I know R.E.M. and I can tell you that when they started getting somewhere they didn't change what they were trying to do. I think they've had their artistic ups and downs, but they have been around for nearly 30 years now and as far as I can tell, the motive is the same as it always was. I think anybody who sticks around and keeps making records just really loves doing it. Of course the specifics change but that's irrelevant!
I can't really think of a band who were great and then they decided to change everything for the sake of making money and then made horrible records which went to #1. (However, a perfect example may exist! Which may involve Eric Carmen, oops.) I mean, of course there are always cheesy acts having great success but that usually is just a reflection of the fact that lots of people have cheesy tastes!
In the late 90s and early 2000s it did seem to me that bands talked more about "radio" and stuff like that and I found it sort of depressing. Because while it is true that many musicians would do well to pay more attention to their business affairs, what was happening here was a sort of change of attitude, a willingness to have somebody tell them what to do which I think is sort of anathema to the whole rock and roll thing! It also suggested they didn't really have any ideas, they just liked some notion of "rock" as a lifestyle or something vague like that. Ugh.
I think the bands started feeling like it was all a bit hopeless, which maybe it was, but the answer is always to be creative and bold, not worried! I guess what I'm saying is, if a musician "sells out", he or she probably does that by losing heart before they ever get anywhere. It's not financial, it's about whether or not somebody loves music enough to be a "lifer", and what that means specifically doesn't matter, but I think anybody who keeps at it forever can't possibly sell out.
It was very correct for George H., as a scruffy nobody, to tell George M. that he didn't like his tie! No sellout possibilities there.
Anyway, this whole issue has been around a long time and was addressed perfectly by the Who on (my favorite) Who record The Who Sell Out!
As some of you know, I know R.E.M. and I can tell you that when they started getting somewhere they didn't change what they were trying to do. I think they've had their artistic ups and downs, but they have been around for nearly 30 years now and as far as I can tell, the motive is the same as it always was. I think anybody who sticks around and keeps making records just really loves doing it. Of course the specifics change but that's irrelevant!
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
I have watched this thread develop from afar and I have deliberately chosen to not comment and even now I choose to not comment fully as I am want to do on occasion because I find this thread a fascinating study of attitudes towards fellow musicians who found their market niche and made it despite the odds being stacked against them.
That's right.......fellow musicians. How many of us would love to spin that wheel of fate and have it point to instant success for you personally...........OK hands up everybody.
Remember when you bought your first guitar or bass, remember when you joined your first band, remember when you played a song and it sounded (to you anyway) as good as or better than the record? Can you recall that feeling? That's what drives people to the top, plus the ability to play, and the ability to keep the goal of "making it" in sight at all times. All you need is a few breaks here and there. The right promotion, the right manager, a tweak and a tweak there and it's all golden. Right? Sell out? Never! That would mean becoming a mindless robot producing muzak for some corporate types who know nothing and all for a few shekels. (insert a picture of The Monkees here)
The dream back then at the time when the Beatles were pursuing their dream was to become self sufficient so you can take your time and produce that masterpiece that you knew was lurking inside you. Some would argue Rubber Soul was their masterpiece. Others would say it was Sgt Peppers. It doesn't really matter which album is considered their best, it only matters that they did it. They produced a number of masterpieces and admittedly a few flops as well. Given a similar chance to express yourself with George Martin at the helm of the technical side of producing a record, I am sure that even then there would be a few of both (masterpieces and flops) in your repertoire as you tried to manage the business side with the label pressuring you to produce a record by the target release date.
The sad part is that those who yell "sell out" the loudest are usually the most ignorant of the business side of the music business. The business side is every bit as valid as the artistic side. Look what happened to Apple when the fab four ignored the consequences of virtually abdicating the business side of being The Beatles.
The Beatles never sold out............they experimented reinvented themselves several times and crossed new frontiers in doing so. Their downfall as a band was succumbing to the belief that they themselves were becoming hackneyed, perhaps obsolete and splitting up over stuff that would not have fazed them when they were climbing to the top. They say the view from the top is lonely. I believe it.
That's right.......fellow musicians. How many of us would love to spin that wheel of fate and have it point to instant success for you personally...........OK hands up everybody.
Remember when you bought your first guitar or bass, remember when you joined your first band, remember when you played a song and it sounded (to you anyway) as good as or better than the record? Can you recall that feeling? That's what drives people to the top, plus the ability to play, and the ability to keep the goal of "making it" in sight at all times. All you need is a few breaks here and there. The right promotion, the right manager, a tweak and a tweak there and it's all golden. Right? Sell out? Never! That would mean becoming a mindless robot producing muzak for some corporate types who know nothing and all for a few shekels. (insert a picture of The Monkees here)
The dream back then at the time when the Beatles were pursuing their dream was to become self sufficient so you can take your time and produce that masterpiece that you knew was lurking inside you. Some would argue Rubber Soul was their masterpiece. Others would say it was Sgt Peppers. It doesn't really matter which album is considered their best, it only matters that they did it. They produced a number of masterpieces and admittedly a few flops as well. Given a similar chance to express yourself with George Martin at the helm of the technical side of producing a record, I am sure that even then there would be a few of both (masterpieces and flops) in your repertoire as you tried to manage the business side with the label pressuring you to produce a record by the target release date.
The sad part is that those who yell "sell out" the loudest are usually the most ignorant of the business side of the music business. The business side is every bit as valid as the artistic side. Look what happened to Apple when the fab four ignored the consequences of virtually abdicating the business side of being The Beatles.
The Beatles never sold out............they experimented reinvented themselves several times and crossed new frontiers in doing so. Their downfall as a band was succumbing to the belief that they themselves were becoming hackneyed, perhaps obsolete and splitting up over stuff that would not have fazed them when they were climbing to the top. They say the view from the top is lonely. I believe it.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
Thanks for your 2 cents Brian, and thank you for letting Scotty and I keep an eye on this section. Some folks I was really hoping would respond here didn't,(too cool for school I guess),but the ones who did sure gave some great responses. It's a shame that a good portion of folks here would rather only talk(some brag)about their gear than to comment on an issue that actually requires a little thinking and can't be googled.
I really feel bad for Sheenas section, as I see my name almost all the way down the list of threads. Certainly there must be more rebellious people or someone with an opinion on something searching these forums. The variety of the RickResource is the best, and it's a shame more folks don't participate in anything other than the same subjects that the RIC site has.
I really feel bad for Sheenas section, as I see my name almost all the way down the list of threads. Certainly there must be more rebellious people or someone with an opinion on something searching these forums. The variety of the RickResource is the best, and it's a shame more folks don't participate in anything other than the same subjects that the RIC site has.
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
That's a pretty neat devil's advocate piece, all right. My perspective as a 10 year old kid, and my perspective as a mumble, mumble, mumble year old adult are probably vastly different. As a kid, I just responded to the sheer energy, I think. My response to "A Hard Days' Night" was "Wow, that looks like a fun job...going all around the country, playing guitar and singing for people." And somehow, they managed to make it look fun.
So now, 40 plus years later, and having gone back and watched the Beatles Anthology, I'm struck by these four working-class English kids really, that had the dumb luck to be in the right place at the right time. And had the great fortune to meet two very important people without whom I daresay none of rock'n'roll history after 1963 would have been written: Brian Epstein, and just as importantly, George Martin.
I don't fault them for quitting the road after 1966. Especially after hearing this quote from George Harrison; "They [fans] gave their screams; the Beatles gave their nervous systems." It's amazing to me that they could do what they did, considering the primitive state of sound re-enforcement of the early '60s. They didn't even have stage monitors! John was so disillusioned by the whole experience that he once said that they might as well have been wax works on stage because nobody could hear them.
If folk music is the music of the people, I imagine that if the human race is still here in two, or three hundred years' time, that a fairly good representation of the Beatles' catalog will have entered oral tradition.
JimK
[How did I miss this thread? Better late than never, I guess.]
So now, 40 plus years later, and having gone back and watched the Beatles Anthology, I'm struck by these four working-class English kids really, that had the dumb luck to be in the right place at the right time. And had the great fortune to meet two very important people without whom I daresay none of rock'n'roll history after 1963 would have been written: Brian Epstein, and just as importantly, George Martin.
I don't fault them for quitting the road after 1966. Especially after hearing this quote from George Harrison; "They [fans] gave their screams; the Beatles gave their nervous systems." It's amazing to me that they could do what they did, considering the primitive state of sound re-enforcement of the early '60s. They didn't even have stage monitors! John was so disillusioned by the whole experience that he once said that they might as well have been wax works on stage because nobody could hear them.
If folk music is the music of the people, I imagine that if the human race is still here in two, or three hundred years' time, that a fairly good representation of the Beatles' catalog will have entered oral tradition.
JimK
[How did I miss this thread? Better late than never, I guess.]
-
shamustwin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5287
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 5:00 am
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
Did the Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
Yes and no.
No, because they were the catalyst for this huge indutsry we have today. Touring, rock journalism (which didn't exist prior to...), marketing, all owe a huge debt to them.
Yes, because so early on, they raised the bar to unreachable heights. Not just the craft and quality of music, not just the cult of personality, but the sheer level of fame.
They're now an industry unto themselves, but back when it was happening in real time, everyday, everywhere, they were being mentioned, discussed, sung, berated, satirized, etc.
My parent's generation on TV was either making them the butt of a joke, or singing one of their tunes, usually horribly, just to show they were in touch or hep. For years, I'd look at the newspaper just to find the one little blurb about them that occured daily. This started when I was 9, and long before Rolling Stone and dedicated rock journalism made it easy to read about your favorite bands, 16 Magazine notwithstanding.
Doubtful anyone or anything can reach that high, saturated level of fame again. It's a different world now. 10 year old girls are listening to different music than 14 year old girls. It seems everything in show biz appearing new to one person will appear as recycled to another. For better or worse, there's something for everyone, as opposed to one thing for everyone.
That was just a moment in time, the right time, the perfect moment.
Yes and no.
No, because they were the catalyst for this huge indutsry we have today. Touring, rock journalism (which didn't exist prior to...), marketing, all owe a huge debt to them.
Yes, because so early on, they raised the bar to unreachable heights. Not just the craft and quality of music, not just the cult of personality, but the sheer level of fame.
They're now an industry unto themselves, but back when it was happening in real time, everyday, everywhere, they were being mentioned, discussed, sung, berated, satirized, etc.
My parent's generation on TV was either making them the butt of a joke, or singing one of their tunes, usually horribly, just to show they were in touch or hep. For years, I'd look at the newspaper just to find the one little blurb about them that occured daily. This started when I was 9, and long before Rolling Stone and dedicated rock journalism made it easy to read about your favorite bands, 16 Magazine notwithstanding.
Doubtful anyone or anything can reach that high, saturated level of fame again. It's a different world now. 10 year old girls are listening to different music than 14 year old girls. It seems everything in show biz appearing new to one person will appear as recycled to another. For better or worse, there's something for everyone, as opposed to one thing for everyone.
That was just a moment in time, the right time, the perfect moment.
Re: Did The Beatles Kill Rock and Roll?
Hey Sheena:sowhat wrote:I used to hate them, really. It was like, "everybody likes the Beatles, how can one not like them?" — coming down on me and i "fought back" (sort of). Not that they were literally playing "from every iron and telegraph-pole", at least not in my country when i was a kid/teenager, but it was like, you know, some people i met were judging others by their attitude to the Beatles, and if you didn't like them, you were "not worthy". So it had more to do with their fans i used to bump into than with the band itself. They were too famous, too commercial for me back in the day. Like, "there's no point in liking what everybody likes and knows" (yeah, ridiculous, i know). Musically, they just didn't move me for some reason — like, "it's nice but i'm not crazy about it"; i liked a few songs though. On the other hand, there were songs i really hated, like "Octopus garden", for instance (i still! cannot! bear!! it!!!).
And yes, they've changed the world of music, but please don't kill me for suggesting hadn't there been the Beatles, there'd be somebody else to do that, it just had to happen. Apart from their undeniable talent, they were in the right place in the right time.
In your last paragraph you "hit the nail square on the head". I grew up during the 60's and loved the Beatles and still do. HOWEVER, when I see "rockumentaries" talking about the very early pioneers of rock and roll (i.e. Beatles, Chuck Berry, Elvis, Bo Diddly etc.) and how if it not been for them rock and roll would have never materialized, it makes me what to hurl. While I have the utmost respect and admiration for those early "rockers" I could not agree with you more. If it hadn't been them, someone else would have come along and done it. To say that without so and so there would not be rock and roll is patently ludicrous.