Your comment about no one argued with the Beatles if they wanted to spend all day in the studio, or night, on one song reminded me of a response by Holland, Dozier, Holland to this question. Did anyone correct Smokey?
No! Quincy might "suggest", but Smokey was Smokey.
Go to npr.org and search them for their interview on Fresh Air 8/5/5
I'm solidly in the camp of the others who can't seem to lavish enough praise on the Beatle above. Maybe luckily for me - they were the first band I ever seriously listened to growing up in the sixties. I respect Dylan, but I still can't get past the vocals - sorry (this is a shame, because the lyrics are so wonderful!). I also greatly respect Brian Wilson, but There was never enough "rough edge" there for me. Later it was Zep & eventually - Steely Dan. Today I respect & like U2, John Mayer, & recently came to grips w/ the realization that Bare Naked Ladies may be writing some of the best pop music of the day. But very recently, operating on the periphery of the music business off & on my whole life (see website bio), I stumbled across someone mostly undiscovered whose music gave me that same feeling of excitement the Beatles and S. Dan once did. To readers out there looking to re-experience that joy, I recommend the following link:
http://danielleemusic.com/. Steve Audio, I am thankful you have written what needed to be said & I respectfully ask you check the site out. I think you'll be impressed.
They were possibly the best rock band ever. Best instumentalists.. no. But they used what they had to deliver the purest, and most biting renditions ever recorded of some rock classics. I would enter "Tell me Why" into evidence on this point. It defines the love relationship between R&R and the backbeat.
The Beatles had absolutly the best vocal instruments ever combined for pop and rock.... ever! To those who disagree I simply say, with respect, you have a tin ear.
But all of that is somewhat incidental. The real story of the Beatles is that God chose those lads to be Avatars of their generation. This was true in a profound way that neither they, nor we, nor anyone is likely to understand in any analytical way. But if you lived through it you are very unlikely to deny it. Maybe it's because they were the first joyful voices we heard as we came out of the shock of JFKs assasination. Maybe it was some other kind of lucky accident.
I dunno... I just thank my lucky stars that I was around to see and hear one of the more beautiful incarnations of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band... and the best damn rock band ever!
Feedback. Lennon claimed the first use of feedback recorded was on "I Feel Fine" right at the start of the track.
The Beatles were influential, without a doubt, because of the status they achieved. They may not have been first at all the things claimed, but they definitely spread the word.
It's funny the bands who say the Beatles were no big deal...They overblown posers Duran Duran, and the insipid REM.
Listen to the Anthologies. Find one of those tracks where they just break into some tune or other spontaneously. They way they pull those off effortlessly and well just shows how talented these guys were.
Like em or hate em.
Ten years before the Beatles, the highest-selling musical artist in the world was Bing Crosby.
Ten years after, it was Led Zeppelin.
These guys were like the Big Bang.
Plus which, although he's been degraded by commercial exposure somewhat, John Lennon was as close to a Ghandi or Bob Marley for white working and middle class first world youth as we are ever likely to see.
America loved rock and roll but the artist were so.....black.
Never fear, Elvis and the Beatles are here!
By the time we are done those white teens will grow into white baby boomers convinced that the Beatles changed everything and completely forget that blacks had anything to do with rock and roll music at all!
Sure, there will be a couple of white lins who will mouth some appreciation towards the darkies but they really won't mean it.
Two minor points:
1) Lo Ping Wong above tried to remind us the the Beatles created 'record albums' and to this I heartily concur (and can prove with at least part of my collection) - before the Beatles, an album had but one or two 'hit singles' (usually the first song) and enough filler to make the buyer think they had something worthwhile, after "Rubber Soul" everything changed, an album now had to be more than just 'the hit'.
2) To all you Ringophiles above I have to say "dead on" - Ringo's little drum fill on Abbey Road's "Hold Me, Love Me" is IMHO the greatest sixties 'drum solo' bar none. No filler, no wasted space, and above all, no wanking. Thank you, Mr. Starr.
I must say I don't listen much to the Beatles anymore but I'm 50 years old so hopefully that is understandable. My favorite tracks of theirs these days are the Anthologies, Let It Be outtakes or those 5 magic songs on Yellow Submarine but that is only as I've heard their other songs and records too many times. The Anthology stuff and the Let It Be outtakes are wonderful as they show the Beatles as real human musicians. i.e. human musicians who make mistakes and occassionaly screw around. Beatles 4ever!
jedmunds' babble is self-refuting and says more about it's mindlessness than about the debatable quality of the Beatles music. If organisms like jedmunds offered similar stupidity like 'I'm indifferent to the air I breathe' or 'Well, the color mauve has never really moved me' we should chop its little fucking fingers off and shove them in his mouth so as to prevent any further emissions from the moron. And his stumps would certainly slow its typing speed. Maybe then it could reflect on how stupid it was.
On the other hand, defending the Beatles because of the changes in recording practices is a little like saying we should eat more peas because they've improved the efficiency in harvesting techniques.
SteveAudio:
Thanks for your excellent post -- I too recoiled in horror then shook my head in sad disbelief when I read the shrug-at-The-Beatles post at Pandagon. I wasn't born when they were around, but I've always considered The Beatles to be the originators of modern rock and pop, by combining the driving backbeats and 1-4-5-based chord progressions of American blues a la Little Richard & Elvis (which itself descended from African music) with European melodic and textural elements.
I think one should also mention in a blogosphere discussion (as others have) that The Beatles provided the very first content to be beamed live by satellite across oceans and around the world -- the first global media event. I view it as the climactic cultural moment of Flower Power when, in 1967, The Beatles performed "All You Need Is Love" on BBC for a live television audience of 350 million people in 26 countries.
Indeed, in addition to all the innovations to the music biz that you describe so well, I'd argue that their cultural impact has been even more significant. From their outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War (pop artists were even less inclined to "be political" back then than they are now), to their popularization of psychedelia and their embrace of Asian spirituality (long before yoga was trendy), to their Dylan-inspired writing of song lyrics that were not only catchy but meaningful, potent, even literary -- The Beatles changed the world in too many ways to count.
Yes, Paul is the best melody-maker of the lot. But John and George were at the intellectual root of the profound impacts on society whose repercussions we're still seeing today. Forget about context or subjectivity -- that rocks.
Peace,
Kai
I've always equated 'creativity' in any field with what the Beatles did between 1964-1969. And as an explosion of amazing quality, it's never been equalled since. It's like time was compressed for them. They lived modified dogs' years--a week was a month for us, a year like seven. Six months after producing one album, they changed gears completely for the next, and had the insane bravery to do whatever they wanted and, more amazingly, make it work. Their five or so artistic phases are four more than most artists can handle in a career, let alone five years.
The mental suppleness and sheer love of the craft it takes to write so many great songs is astounding to me. To think that John Lennon wrote 'Nowhere Man' about a period of songwriter's block is phenomenal. He had a block? When was that, for fifteen minutes one day in 1966, and never again until 1971?
One obvious thing you left out in your list of pioneering things is that the Beatles gave off touring to retire to the studio in, what? 1966? No other act did that before them.
Another jsucla innovation was the way the drum sticks were held. All drummer sused to hold the drum sticks like a little english drummer boy. Ringo pounded on the drum like a hammer. Hence, Metallica.
My two cents:
Rock became a serious art form for three reasons: Bob Dylan, Brian Wilson, and the Beatles. It's very hard to to pick a "winner" here because there was so much cross-influence.
John Lennon began to write serious lyrics because of Dylan. In fact, Dylan famously scolded Lennon along the lines of "you have this amazing platform, why not use it for something important."
The Beatles creativity in the studio was influenced immensely by Brian Wilson, and McCartney's bass playing is derived from the Beach Boys.
Dylan began to experiment with electric music because of the Beatles.
etc.
etc.
All I have to say is Frank Zappa. Zappa > Beatles. End of story.
The backwards vocals on "Rain" Maybe someone can find an earlier example, but in an interview, Lennon thought that was the first.
Much as I love the Beatles, Lennon was wrong.
Ferrante & Teicher, the piano duo responsible for an embarrassing amount of musical dreck from the 1950s onward, did a fairly interesting "experimental" album in 1956 called Soundproof. One track on this album begins with two piano chords, the tape recording of which was reversed as the lead-in to the song.
To the best of my knowledge this was the first time anyone employed a tape played backwards on a commercially released recording of music, and it definitely pre-dates the Beatles use of this technique by ten years.
To all who commented, thanks much. To those who still don't get it, sad for you.
Re: criticisms, all are appreciated.
Re: Beach Boys, sure, except they were still in Murray's grip during the time mentioned, and it wasn't until Pet Sounds that they & Brian really flourished. One can argue that Brian's early bout of creativity was largely an homage to the Four Preps vocally, while retaining Chuck Berry/surf guitar intstrumental elements. Not until "Good Vibrations" did he really innovate, IMHO.
Also, Brian may have picked the "Wrecking Crue" but that's no piece of genius, since they were the best known and respected musicians of the time. And I maintain that he was likely given no choice in the matter, as the folks at Capitol weren't about to let the boys play their own stuff, esp. as it advanced beyond "Surfin' USA" and "Sloop John B."
Re: Tom Dowd and multitrack, true, EMI was notoriously cautious about embracing new technology, as was the BBC, but the recordings made on 4 track and especially on 8 track by the Beatles influenced more people, musicians, and engineers, by being more "outside the box" than anyone else. In re: Beach Boys multitrack, no one really paid any attention at the time in the studio engineering community, it was just more voices, instruments. But when we heard what the Beatles were doing, the normal reaction was "What the F...?" The bar had been raised. Clearly, the two groups were positioned as the leaders of the rock music world at the time, and played off each other's work.
Re: Dylan, clearly important. But as was pointed out, he picked up a strat after listening to the Beatles. He furthered an already existing tradition, while the Beatles created new traditions.
Re: Mellotron, I have repaired many of these. My post was written at 3AM, and I wasn't sure about whether to include the mellotron, so I left it out. Thanks for the info.
FWIW, I have worked many times with John Kurlander and Malcolm Addey, who were assistants at Abbey Road back 'in the day' and Geoff Emerick, and they are all still working engineers and producers today.
Another innovation:
The backwards vocals on "Rain" Maybe someone can find an earlier example, but in an interview, Lennon thought that was the first.
whatsinaname,
Good call on the harmonies. Nobody approaches them. I feel sorry for those who don't get the Beatles. They're missing an amazing experience.
Lewisnclark: You just don't get it. The Fabs were a whole lot better than you let on.
Anxious Mo-Fo: Wonderful insight into a great, great song. I'd even bet your bird can sing, too. Of them all, I've long wondered why on earth that song never recieved the air time as their usual suspects still do.
Bob Broughton: Marty Robbins had to "sneak in" El Paso?!! I guess it goes to show, all you gotta do is Act Naturally.
To paraphrase the lovely Winston O'Boogie, "The Beatles may have been the flag on top of the mast, but they were moving with the ship along with everyone else".
"The Roadie."
Ha ha HA!
Amen! My 18 year old without much prompting from me worships The Beatles and all on her own discovered the magic and quality of their musicianship that will set them apart from everyone else 100 years from now. It has been an honor to live during their time and I fully expect to be whistling a Beatle's tune when I slump over in the rest home at the end of my life.
Don't forget the fact that the Beatles performed the first ever globally televised simulcast with a rendition of "All you Need is Love." They were spiritual, and that is part of the appeal.
First, let me say -- good post, great subject, and I LOVE THE BEATLES. No question, they were extremely talented and deserve all the praise in the world.
BUT...
Your post ignores one little thing. Every single one of your Beatles innovations that "changed everthing" had already occurred years earlier in America thanks to a young man named BRIAN WILSON -- leader of The Beach Boys.
As early as 1963, Brian Wilson was given free reign to produce his own records (unheard of for a pop act at that time!) This meant he was able to choose where to record (usually independent studios like Western and Goldstar in Hollywood), when to record (often marathon sessions that meant expensive overtime pay for the union musicians and engineers he used), and of course, he had total control over the material recorded and who played on the session. You mention the "wrecking crew" but fail to disclose that these supremely talented musicians were hand-picked by Brian himself -- not forced on him by the record company or an outside producer.
Again, let me point out, Brian was doing this in the EARLY 1960s, barely past the age of 20.
Also, few people remember that The Beach Boys had their very own record label (Brother Records) more than a year before The Beatles created Apple Corp.
After the SMiLE fiasco of 1966-67, The Beach Boys began their steady decline into irrelevancy, and Brian Wilson began his slow reatreat into the bedroom. Only now is he and his band beginning to get the credit they so richly deserve.
Yes, The Beatles were extremely talented innovators. But they were not the only ones in the vanguard. And between 1963-67 I'd argue that there was at least one artist/songwriter/producer who was even further out on the cutting edge, breaking new ground, showing the rest of popular music (even The Beatles) the way forward.
Surf's Up!
K.
Putting peanut butter on french toast changes everything to.
You pulled the legs out from under your own argument. It was happening anyway, their presence in the midst of it was coincidental. What about all the bands on either side of them...were they just enjoying the ride?
Fan loyalty is wonderful, I guess. But I don't see much more here.
whatever
I'm surprised you didn't mention the mellotron... I had the priviledge, in the seventies, to have played on the first mellotron (I believe there were only two in existence at that time) - the one which was used by the Beatles - in the Dick James Studio in London. Amazing instrument which today would look like a dinosaur - a large piece of wooden furniture, kind of like an organ, with two keyboards next to each other, and a whole console of stops/buttons above each keyboard for choosing the type of instruments and backing style for the left-hand keyboard, and musical instruments on the right-hand keyboard - each stop/button related to a looped tape recording. I guess the mellotron was the seminal sampler! Amazing instrument, and very fun to play.
Thanks for your excellent article.
I loved the Beatles in 1963 when I heard the 1st 45rpm with my 5th grade friends and love them still today.
I sang Beatle songs to my kids as lullabies and they still request them.
They had lots of questions as we listened to music and interviews on the anniversary of John Lennon's assassination.
They changed the recording industry, yes. And they cxhanged music. But most of all they changed us.
Lewis clark Beatle post: Part 3:
Ultimately The Beatles mutated into cool purveyors of love and transcendence, and came to be viewed as either the last flowering of the romantic tradition in western civilization or as the first glimpse of a new world trying to be born. Either way the importance of The Beatles might be better weighed against something like the advent of the personal computer or a credible sighting of a UFO, than simply comparing them to other pop groups.
To me, the very fact that we're even kicking this topic around in a semi-serious way indicates that many people simply don't know or appreciate just how significant The Beatles were to the 20th Century.
I *highly* recommend that you guys seek out the brilliant book about The Beatles and the 1960's by the late music critic Ian McDonald entitled "Revolution in the Head". Read it, absorb it, go back and listen to the music, and then if you're still interested we can come back and discuss the relative merits of The Eagles, or AC/DC or whoever.
My two cents...
The rest of my post (sorry, but this is important)
Only a handful of artists can truly be said to have changed the world, and in popular music only Elvis Presley and to a much lesser degree Dylan and reggae legend Bob Marley approached the worldwide impact of the four ordinary boys from Liverpool. More on that in a sec...
In any case, none of these other icons are "groups" per se. The Beatles are the quintessential expression of Group Identity, (indeed they practically invented the idea of the self contained, rock and roll group) and that's very significant. The Beatles, (like the Grateful Dead and others who arrived on the scene later) personified and popularized the odd and subversive ideal that an individual can express his or herself more freely and fully as an a participating aspect of a greater whole. And in this case, that greater whole is a foursome, which I'm sure you fans of Jung and Joseph Campbell-style myth studies can appreciate.
As Jack White of the White Stripes said a while back "people who claim not to like The Beatles or Bob Dylan can't really be into music. They're probably just into the pose". Personally I don't give a shit about "classic" rock, and The Beatles has zero to do with that. My question here is if you don't dig the Beatles, what DO you like? Where are your ears? Who or what tops it?
The original punk movement was important and exciting, and I'm proud to say I saw the Sex Pistols, The Clash, Ramones, Patti Smith Group and many others of that caliber perform live back in the late 70's. Led Zeppelin was great, especially if (like me) you started getting into them as a teenage boy. Between 1965 and 1973 or so the Rolling Stones were incredible. The Who has gotta be on anybody's short list of Greatest Rock Bands. I'm also a fan of the Doors, Jefferson Airplane, Laura Nyro, the Velvet Underground, Joni Mitchell, David Bowie, etc etc. Early rock n roll geniuses like Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and Jerry Lee Lewis, and pioneering old school hip hop giants like Grandmaster Flash, Public Enemy, etc, obviously deserve their due in terms of creating dynamic and influential popular music that reached millions of people and changed the way they saw and felt about their place in the world.
Nevertheless, none of these artists are even close to being in the same ballpark as The Beatles, for the reasons mentioned above.
To recap...
The Beatles exploded onto the world stage like an unexpected comet, a phenomenol expression of fun, youth and the promise of vast and weird possibilities. Then, they actually delivered on that promise in spectacular ways few would have believed even possible, reaching another strata altogether by reinventing themselves as artists via an astonishing body of work still unsurpassed in it's creativity and resonance. Ultimately The Beatles mutated into cool purveyors of love and transcendence, and came to be viewed as either the last flowering of the romantic t
The best thing about the Beatles is when you listen to extent that the music changed from 1963 to 1970. I still haven't heard a band change that much in 7 short years. "While my guitar gently weeps" is the an awesome song.
The Beatles certainly changed or invented a lot of what musicians, engineers, producers and others in the "music industry" now take for granted. But they made other, more potent contributions to our little sun-encircling stone, musically cuturally and otherwise. I've posted this little schpiel elsewhere but I humbly submit that it bears repeating.
Obviously, taste is subjective, and aesthetics are personal. I certainly don't mean to diminish anybody's enjoyment of their personal fave, but if we're talking about The Greatest Rock Band Ever, there's...
The Beatles
... and then there's everyone else. Seriously.
Why? In a way maybe this is one of those "if ya gotta ask, you'll never know" kinda things, but the proof is in the pudding and the reasons are simple and obvious:
1) Most creative artistic legacy and body of work by a fairly wide margin.
(ie albums such as Revolver, the White Album, Sgt Pepper, Rubber Soul, and Abbey Road; and individual songs like She Loves You, No Reply, Help!, For No One, The Word, Eleanor Rigby, Rain, We Can Work it Out, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day in the Life, I Am the Walrus, Blackbird, Hey Jude, Revolution, You Never Give Me Your Money, Come Together, etc; etc, etc, etc). Who can match that body of work? (and it's worth noting that all of the above plus much much more was created within about 6 years time!)
If you haven't listened to these tracks in a while (or ever?!) I urge you to do so as soon as you can. This stuff is ALIVE. They rock, they roll, they woo and turn expectations upside down, and they do it with grace, intensity, humor and intelligence. In terms of emotional depth, artistic range, and musical innovation, The Beatles delivered at every level. In the rock and pop culture world only a handful are even close to The Beatles in terms of this kind of achievement as artists. (Bob Dylan and to some degree Jimi Hendrix are probably right there. Maybe there are one or two others).
Which is why in 300 years, if there's still a planet Earth, you've got to believe that many, many people will remain interested in and moved by the music of The Beatles, Dylan, and Hendrix in much the same way we in the 21st Century are still interested in and moved by Shakespeare or Rembrandt or Indian raga music. Maybe this sounds high falootin, but some art is so tuned in and so human, that it speaks across time and retains it's charge in a broad and profound way.
2) They broke up 35 years ago yet still sell millions, and attract legions of new fans, but beyond all that, compared to the others mentioned here, The Beatles had far and away the most dynamic impact and influence, not merely in music or even pop culture, but in world cultural history per se. Only a handful of artists can truly be said to have changed the world, and in popular music only Elvis Presley and to a much lesser degree Dylan and reggae legend Bob Marley approached the worldwide impact of the four ordinary bo
Alan wrote:
but I would also point to the evidence of "And Your Bird Can Sing" on Revolver as further evidence of the Beatles' genius.
Big cheer! The most humbling experience I can name as a guitar player is when I tried to learn this song. I still can't do it and my appreciation of George always increses when I hear it.
Joe Walsh has said that he once talked to Ringo about it and how hard it was to play. Joe thought that it had been played on a 12 string. Ringo told him that George played it on a 6 string, in two parts that had been mixed on top of each other. When asked how long it took George to come up with that guitar part, Ringo said it took an afternoon.
Brilliant musicians.
Thank you for clearing things up for me. I never understood why I love all types of music up until about the 1950's and after the mid 1960's with the exception of a few stand-outs. You explained it - the songs in that span of time were made by music machines. Must be why I'm not a fan of Britney & Madonna types either because I've nothing against "pop" music, just music made to be "pop".
Thanks again, great stuff.
I was listening to a guy named Lionel on radio and he said that Paul McCartney's work in Wings was better than anything the Beatles did. What can you do.
Funny this topic. Christmas always makes me think of the Beatles. I got my first guitar the Christmas I was 10, after pestering my folks for one because of the Beatles in 1964.
I learned to play just about every Beatle song I could possibly master by the time I was in high school and moved on to other artists I favored, Dylan, the Dead, Neil Young, Springsteen and later blues and jazz... (and since I finger pick I love Knoffler) but each time I come back to lennon and mccartney and I work through the chords of the Beatles songs I learned decades ago, i am surprised at how simple and beautiful the music is. you can hear the old english dance/singing-hall sound from maccartney and lennon's rock-n-roll mischief that blended together in something entirely fresh to those of us around in the early and mid '60s.
indeed, "contextual" cultural props to the Fab Four, and that horse has been ridden so much it is moved from a cottage industry to a full blown megalopolis.
But they were outstanding song writers and great live performers long before they were famous and their music was so unlike what came before, that one can easily understand that they stood at the divide in popular music, yeap an old guy like me can remember "before" the Beatles, and what came after as a result of the music they played and inspired in others.
that musical chasm between "before" and "after" is widest when one talks about the Beatles and as Steve Audio states, it was not just the songs, but the entire music indusry and the impact they had on musicians themselves.
Issac Newton once said that if he could see farther than others of his day it was because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. any decent modern musician know how broad the Beatles shoulders were in song writing, producing and innovation... one would be hard put to say "that was a typical Beatle song" because they ranged so wide in sound and lyric. can that be said of many other musicians?
on just one song, my favorite, You've got to hide your love away" you can here John start out close to the mic, then in the second stanza move away to make the vocal affect as distant as the meaning of the words he is singing. that simple change in the proximity of the voice you hear, overlaid with the lyrics creates something not available without that simple trick.
oh did i mention their harmonies? yeah, that too.
sing " IMAGINE " to yourself
while reading this short web site
if U want 2
http://www.OneGlobalCommunity.com
Thank U, RogerART.com
Great discussion many good points. I fall in the Bob Dylan is the 20th century's greatest artist camp. Love the Beatles and the Stones immensely, but Charlie is the much better rockdrummer (helluva a groove for a white guy). Personal Aside:Best American drummer- Jim Keltner esp w Ry;Levon Helm w the Band)
Steve Nitpicks:
You overrate the Beatles for (1) indian instrementation (brian jones as stated before and first indian chord progression on rock song: The Kinks "see my friend". and (2) 8 track recording- review film Tom Dowd and the Language of Music, he and Atlantic way ahead of George Martin in all phases of stereo recording development-they just didn't try to blow your mind w headphone effects. The beatles synthesized a lot of the energy and inquisitiveness of the 60s and have too often been credited w the invention of all of it to my mind.
That said it is correct never to date woman who can't name all 4 Beatles, only exception deomonstrably great familiarity w Lucinda Williams!
Great post.
Won't get you anywhere, but great post just the same.
I too spend every day in the studio and I too have tried to explain this importance to non-believers, but it's almost impossible to "explain" importance or "convince" music.
If you're interested in some of their studio break-throughs, I have a document posted on my blog that outlines the "Tomorrow Never Knows" sessions. One song, but the progress made in those few days is absolutely incredible!
http://www3.sympatico.ca/
trevor....tmk_outline.htm
Enjoy!
Trevor.
Thanks for this, Steve. To return the favour... if you or anyone else wants a good lesson about the bad old days of the recording industry, listen to "The Essential Marty Robbins" box set, and read the liner notes. Robbins was a talented singer who had to record whatever crap Mitch Miller was cranking out that month. Robbins somehow managed to sneak "El Paso" and "Big Iron" (both recorded in the same session) by him.
Also, Buck Owens was mentioned here. I drove through Bakersfield last month, and I was pleased to see that they named an avenue after him.
So what? sure, the beatles changed everything but not because the reasons you gave... you're only talking about technical stuff. I love the Beatles, but at least I respect when someone else doesn't.
I would add another important factor; The Beatles were uniquely themselves and the industry found out that it had a group of individuals who proceeded to change and grow which in turn broke the pre-fab mold that had been constructed for them. This was no mean feat. It meant that pop music moved beyond the realm of the packaged teen idol toward something akin to an environment where actual artistry could sometimes thrive.
the drummer for the Dreden Dolls is top notch.
And why is Clem Burke the only American rock drummer I can think of tonight that makes my heart sing?
Duh. Clyde Stubblefield. Don't know why that didn't spring to mind immediately. It was late, last night.
patrick,
What about Keith Moon (aside from his being, y'know, dead and all)?
fucking amazing, yes, absolutely, hell yeah.
As I was preparing to record what ended up being my last album with the band that made my reputation in my part of the world, I went through a major Moonie phase, and it made for some interesting recordings. I did a passable imitation of Keith Moon, but there's a manic intensity and complete freedom to his playing that makes trying to 'play like Keith Moon' something like 'trying to swat an entire swarm of bees barehanded.' I am not Keith Moon, I was forced to admit, and I won't ever be.
The things that make the other drummers great-
Charlie Watts- feel, groove, precision
Bonham- power, eloquence, tone TONE TONE!!!
Ringo- humor, joy, swing, subtlety
are all things that a mortal human being with some time, attention to detail and desire, might be able to capture in their own playing.
Trying to play like Keith Moon, however...
I couldn't do it. Not well.
Your mileage may vary.
Then there's the whole Ginger Baker thing.... fucking monster.
And Mitch Mitchell... a genius.
And why is Clem Burke the only American rock drummer I can think of tonight that makes my heart sing?
By the way, I have drums, will travel, and my per song rates are really, really affordable. Charlie Watts probably won't play on your record, but I will.
Keith Moon makes me dance.
SteveA,
You mention Springsteen but not Dylan? What gives?
patrick,
What about Keith Moon (aside from his being, y'know, dead and all)?
Bravo. Fucking Bravo. Great Post.
There is a character that has been in a couple of Carl Hiassons books. Slowly wising up about his love life. Now, if a female can't name all of the Beatles, he knows they're too young for him.
By the way, I've just seen Walk The Line which is very good.
Afterwards we went to a bar, my friend has a new boyfriend who didn't really know Johnny Cash but was impressed with my knowledge of him (which is informed but not super-deep.) He said, you must have his whole discography, huh? I didn't have the heart to tell him that Johnny Cash's discography is like 75 albums.
Kevin,
Rhythmically, "I've just seen.." is quite similar to other country-esque songs covered by The Beatles, as well as other Brit Invasion bands. Substitute correct chords and you have "Act Naturally" etc. And the harmonies on the chorus "Fallin..." ring like Buck's and Don Rich's on many of their pieces.
Their flirtation with country, I feel, led to an increased poularization of country here in the USA. And of course the re-popularization of the proto-rockers like Carl Perkins who were all steeped in the country tradition.
For bands of the day, "Johnny B. Goode" was mandatory repertoire, I know, because I was in bands before the Beatles broke. But here in the US, "Blue Suede Shoes" was completely 'over' and considered hick by most musicians coming up at the time. The Beatles' cover of "Honey Don't" helped bring Perkins back to the limelight.
Does anybody else agree with Steve that I've just seen a face is an homage to Buck Owens?
I don't hear it.
Michael said:
'Bands that everybody likes just can't be all that, right?'
When I was a kid (like 8 or 9) the artists that did it for me were Michael Jackson and Prince. I went through a phase where I was somewhat anti-MJ but thankfully grew out of it. I don't know if he's up there influence-wise with the Beatles, but... I once spent a fair amount of time living in a small town in Portugal. In this town was a family who we visited often from Angola. Their son, Mario, always said to us "you have no idea how big Michael Jackson is in Africa". Anyway, I've come to accept and appreciate and enjoy alot of those songs I liked when I was a kid and when I play them now at events it seems that most folks, old and young, agree.
By the way, SteveA, one point of correction. George Martin didn't start working with the Beatles because EMI required him to. In fact, Martin was on the lookout for a pop act, hoping to elevate his label, Parlophone, which was a very minor player on the EMI scene. He was essentially acting as his own A&R man in taking them on, and it was entirely his decision to do so. He deserves credit for his prescience, especially when the bigger wigs at EMI, along with almost everyone else in the London recording world (which at that time meant the British recording world), had already taken a pass on the band.
"Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane," double A-side. Show me any other release from the rock era that matches, or even comes near, the level of eloquence and musical invention of that record. That is to say, any release outside the Beatles' own canon. It's a measure of what they were that the Beatles are the Beatles' only real competition.
There's a certain kind of musical snob who wants to wave their hand at the Beatles because, hell, pretty much everybody likes them. Bands that everybody likes just can't be all that, right? There's a quote, from a source I can't recall, that sums up my reaction to that sort of posing: "Not liking the Beatles is as perverse as not liking the sun."
I've said similar things about the Beatles in the past, i.e. that I feel like there's no reason a band today couldn't be as good or influential. I was unaware, however, of the effect they had on the industry itself. Also, as I listen to music today I hear much that's derived (knowingly or not) from the Beatles.
Personally, all of that fades into irrelevance as I sit here and listen to that feedback note at the beginning of "I Feel Fine". Or the gigantic bass of "Come Together". They're simple pleasures, but they keep me coming back to their music and thus I'm constrained to say that the Beatles were, musically speaking, one of the greatest bands in history.
And the concept album. Before "Sgt. Peppers," no rock act had ever really tied a bunch of songs into a theme across an album.
"I've just seen a face" while lovely, is one of many either actual Buck Owens covers or homages The Beatles did. I specifically chose "Please..." because of its energy, and the 'drama' of the harmonica on the signature riff.
Folks may disagree on some minor points re: specific songs, but in re their total re-writing of the instruction manual for making records, that really can't be argued.
I would take "I've just seen a face" over "Please, please, me."
I once was at a party with a bunch post-punk-indie rock types and one guy came out with "I think the Beatles are overated." People just ignored him and for the next hour and half everyone was just talking about their favorite Beatle albums.
Thanks for the attempt to educate the kids who don't understand the history of rock and roll. My wife is a sometime pop music critic/writer. She's 10 years younger than I am and is utterly ignorant of pre-MTV rock music. She doesn't get the Beatles, and I've given up. I'm going to make sure she reads this.
I'm not sure how that refutes jedmunds' point that he doesn't like most of their music.
Actually, jedmund's point was obscured by his/her later statement "I'm more or less indifferent to listening to their albums, which are fine, but meaningless to me."
Which I think is what (justly and correctly) got the proprietor's ass up on his shoulders.
I was at a party once where none other than MIKE MILLS, bassist of REM (a fine musician and all around decent guy- don't think I am calling his achievements into question) said "I don't see what the big deal about the Beatles is. I mean, y'know, they're ok." I slapped my forehead so hard I saw stars. My response was nowhere near as eloquent as Mr. Audio's.
As a session drummer, I find that (outside of the studio) hardly anyone appreciates the amazing drumming of Ringo. Inside the studio, I have discovered that when I do my level best to play with as much subtlety, simplicity, swing and style as Mr. Starr, they say "How should I make out this check? Can you be here tomorrow?"
Yesterday, having lunch with a friend (admittedly a Philistine, but not a bad guy), I said "I dunno, for pop music, it's a toss-up. It's either Ringo Starr or Charlie Watts for Best Drummer Ever." (for rock, y'know, it's Bonzo, yes.)
And he said "What about Neil Peart?"
(Fortunately, there was nothing in my mouth.)
I said "When was the last time you stopped what you were doing and did a little dance when a fucking Rush song came on the radio?"
"Ah," he said.
"Quite," said I.
There's a reason my business cards say "Don't fear the Ringo."
Words to remember in the studio. (As well as "Respect the tambourine.")
jedmunds can like or not like their music, as is his choice. My point, as part of a larger dynamic, is that pop music completely changed, was thrown on its head, by these guys. Their impact on the recording business and the way we make albums, is akin to the Ten Commandments, the Holy Roman Empire, the Wright Brothers, in that everything was completely different on a scale that folks today can't even imagine.
It's as if they developed the internal combustion engine.
Otherwise he's totally right.
While there is no argument that the Beatles were hugely influential in the world of rock and pop music, I'm not sure how that refutes jedmunds' point that he doesn't like most of their music. Isn't that a personal taste?
Thank God somebody has come out and said this.
"Please Please Me" is a great pop song, but I would also point to the evidence of "And Your Bird Can Sing" on Revolver as further evidence of the Beatles' genius.
Commenting by HaloScan
