"The Beatles!"

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1360422170' post='1970120']
The most over-rated band in history

Very influential etc but I have never actually listened to 90% of their stuff. Not hostile, just never went there.
[/quote]

I'm going to write in my diary the day that I agreed with Bilbo - seriously.

[i][font=comic sans ms,cursive]"Dear Diary.......[/font][/i]

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Leonard Smalls' timestamp='1360506052' post='1971328']
Who's to say that One Direction, once they've finished with their cr*ppy little songs for 9 year old girls, won't become the next innovators in music?



After all, they've had huge success and are known all over the world...
[/quote]

The Guardian's music "expert" (their word not mine) was quoted in The Independant as saying that history proves that Kraftwerk were more influential in music than The Beatles.
Even I snorted in derision.

[Leonard Smalls]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1360507380' post='1971353']
I know nothing of One Direction other than they sold their souls to Simon Cowell and are very successful. Are they song writers?
.
[/quote]

OK, for the sake of argument let's say Take That could be the next saviours of music...
In my book they produce populist pap of the worst sort (alright, 2nd worst sort!), but then that's what pop music is. Bit like "I wanna Hold Your Hand"!
But perhaps Gary and Robbie (but probably not the other 2!) will take influences from Stockhausen and Toumane Diabate and make the most amazing, experimental music the world has ever heard, which would be lovely.
But some things are difficult to forgive. Like "Back for Good". Or "Love Me Do"...
However, my objections to the Beatles could be because I'm a stubborn s*d who doesn't like being told what to do, or what to like... Though funnily enough, I quite like Revolver. But I most certainly don't like Sergeant Peppers. Even though I've got the BeeGees version of it with fold out poster and featuring Peter Frampton, Steve Martin and Frankie Howard...

[BigRedX]

It's all subjective really but...

Like all artistic success stories it's as much about being in the right place at the right time as it is about raw talent. The Beatles will always be important because they were the first pop band to lots of things, but being first doesn't automatically give you any other status. It just means you were first.

I didn't get into music until after The Beatles had split up, so I never saw first hand how influential they were. When I was learning to play the guitar their songs were some of the first ones I learnt to play, so they definitely set me on my musical path. However with every year that passes, their importance [i][b]TO ME[/b][/i] diminishes. I have a couple of Beatles albums in my record collection, but I also have a few thousand other albums that I enjoy listening to more. I'm sure that many of the artists I prefer have made their mark by "standing on the shoulders of The Beatles" and TBH why shouldn't they? The music already exists. If you think you can take what has gone before, put your own mark on it and improve it, you'd be stupid not to. That's how music develops.

By all means look back at the bands you admire in order to help you move forward musically, but take off the blinkers and the rose-tinted (little round) glasses and view the past objectively. Popular music thrives by moving on, by developing and mutating. If you spend too much time looking back you'll stagnate and become irrelevant.

[Beer of the Bass]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360507923' post='1971367']
The Guardian's music "expert" (their word not mine) was quoted in The Independant as saying that history proves that Kraftwerk were more influential in music than The Beatles.
Even I snorted in derision.
[/quote]

While that might be a bit of a stretch, it's true that there has been a lot of sequenced electronic music in the charts for a long time now, and Kraftwerk were one of the first acts to do that in a pop context. I'd say the man from the Guardian was intentionally taking a devils advocate/provoking debate sort of position, which I guess is his job as a music journalist.

[Dave Vader]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1360438540' post='1970560']
The Beatles were not the first, but almost so, to write their own material; lyrics, melodies, arrangements, and become very popular. Before, music was composed by a composer, lyrics provided by a song writer, and musicians played what others had written, generally. The Beatles changed that. There were many other influences, but this was indeed a major change in the whole music cosmos, not simply 'pop' music. Whether one likes what they did or not, this was a huge change for all of us. There are other examples, but none so immensely widespread.
Just my tuppence-worth.
[/quote]

Buddy Holly.

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360506789' post='1971340']
Not true at all. That would be like saying a saw a couple of early pencil sketches by Van Gogh so I don't t have to see anything else to get what he does. Or, I saw Michael Cain in Jaw2 and can't understand why people say he's such a good actor.
[/quote]

Michael Caine was in Jaws the Revenge (no 4) it was sh*te. Jaws 2 is quite good.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360507923' post='1971367']
The Guardian's music "expert" (their word not mine) was quoted in The Independant as saying that history proves that Kraftwerk were more influential in music than The Beatles.
Even I snorted in derision.
[/quote]

Have you heard all the electronic music that has permeated the charts for the last 30 odd years? Wouldn't be there without Kraftwerk. The guitary pap would still be around without the Beatles.

More guesswork, the Beatles start getting interesting (and less of a rock and roll covers band) when they come back from America, and come out with Rubber Soul and Revolver. Interestingly, in the clubs of America, fledgling Jefferson Airplanes and Grateful Deads are doing music not disimilar to this.
The Tommorow Never Knows thing mentioned earlier, draws on stuff that is quite obscure, but Lennon was into weird stuff, and drew from this.
The first ever recorded guitar feedback on I feel fine, around the same time as the Young Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck etc, were knocking out loud as hell blues tunes in the clubs of London, and abusing feedback.
The Sergeant Pepper psychedelia thing comes out slightly after Zappa and Hendrix etc. begin launching sonic assaults on audiences across the USA.
I'm not saying the Beatles weren't the first band to record this stuff, and stick a load of things together coherently, but to claim they invented it all is juts plain wrong. Without Buddy Holly, they would have been nothing, and I reckon Macca would agree with me.

Btw, I have all the Beatles albums, and love most of them (Octopus Garden and Ob-la-di Ob-la-da notwithstanding) but after listening, I did what I always do and looked around for their influences (cos I started listening to the Beatles properly cos they were always cited as influences).
Due to their sheer popularity they are undoubtedly influential, but a lot of people done't bother looking to see where they got their own influences from, thus assuming inventiveness where there was less than assumed.

BTw. George Martin is a ^%&*ing genius though.

[gsgbass]

Like them, or hate them, The Beatles were, and still are [size=5][b]"The Beatles!"[/b][/size]

Edited February 10, 2013 by gsgbass

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1360511618' post='1971464']Buddy Holly.[/quote]

I'll see your Buddy Holly - and raise you............... Bo Diddley..[i]“I held the door open for them and they ran right by me.”[/i]

......... and at around the same time Chuck Berry.

[Lowender]

EVERYBODY had influences, Coltrane, Miles, Ellington, Mozart, you name it. To say the Beatles were influenced by others in a non point.

Meanwhile show me ONE example of a song structure ANYTHING like "She Loves You" prior to 1964. It doesn't exist.

[icastle]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1360507380' post='1971353']
I know nothing of One Direction other than they sold their souls to Simon Cowell and are very successful. Are they song writers?
[/quote]

Weren't they the ones who might have caught chlamydia off of a koala bear?

[Bassman Sam]

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1360514812' post='1971526']
Weren't they the ones who might have caught chlamydia off of a koala bear?
[/quote]

It would have been more news worthy if it had been the other way round. [size=4] [/size]

[icastle]

[quote name='Bassman Sam' timestamp='1360515271' post='1971536']
It would have been more news worthy if it had been the other way round. [size=4] [/size]
[/quote]

True

And it does make a change from 'I caught it off a toilet seat'...

[risingson]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360514420' post='1971519']
Meanwhile show me ONE example of a song structure ANYTHING like "She Loves You" prior to 1964. It doesn't exist.
[/quote]

A lot of things wouldn't exist with out them, full stop, end of story. Most of the people in this thread contesting otherwise are very much free to do so and opinions matter but not a single thing so far has countered the [u]fact[/u] that their influence was anything less than extraordinary, most arguments generally stemming from a fairly obvious dislike of the band.

[flyfisher]

Not everything they did received a rapturous welcome of course. Tragical History Tour was panned by the critics . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1y9BIjTSVk

Edited February 10, 2013 by flyfisher

[dand666]

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1360516029' post='1971556']
A lot of things wouldn't exist with out them, full stop, end of story. Most of the people in this thread contesting otherwise are very much free to do so and opinions matter but not a single thing so far has countered the [u]fact[/u] that their influence was anything less than extraordinary, most arguments generally stemming from a fairly obvious dislike of the band.
[/quote]

This.

[steve-soar]

For producer Rick Rubin, surveying The Beatles’ recorded achievements is akin to witnessing a miracle. “If we look at it by today’s standards, whoever the most popular bands in the world are, they will typically put out an album every four years,” Rubin said in a 2009 radio series interview. “So, let’s say two albums as an eight year cycle. And think of the growth or change between those two albums. The idea that The Beatles made thirteen albums in seven years and went through that arc of change... it can’t be done. Truthfully, I think of it as proof of God, because it’s beyond man’s ability.”



Love that quote.

[Slatfatf]

The Beatles' music should be on the school curriculum as a subject in it's own right. Fantastic tunes and so many of them. To this day my jaw still drops when I hear someone say that they don't like their music.

[kevin_lindsay]

Here's something to make you feel old. When the Beatles split up, George Harrison was still only 27!!!

[the_skezz]

[quote name='kevin_lindsay' timestamp='1360529624' post='1971941']
Here's something to make you feel old. When the Beatles split up, George Harrison was still only 27!!!
[/quote]

Something to make you feel young; that's the same age as Bon Scott when he joined AC/DC

[Lowender]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1360528966' post='1971918']
For producer Rick Rubin, surveying The Beatles’ recorded achievements is akin to witnessing a miracle. “If we look at it by today’s standards, whoever the most popular bands in the world are, they will typically put out an album every four years,” Rubin said in a 2009 radio series interview. “So, let’s say two albums as an eight year cycle.[b] And think of the growth or change between those two albums. [/b] The idea that The Beatles made thirteen albums in seven years and went through that arc of change... it can’t be done. Truthfully, I think of it as proof of God, because it’s beyond man’s ability.”



Love that quote.
[/quote]

The Beatles are my favorite 3 bands. : )

[Hobbayne]

Incedently, its 50 years ago tomorrow since they recorded their 1st album at Abbey Road studios in a single day. They are honouring that achievement tomorrow apparently! [url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21056842"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21056842[/url]

[BetaFunk]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1360528966' post='1971918']
For producer Rick Rubin, surveying The Beatles’ recorded achievements is akin to witnessing a miracle. “If we look at it by today’s standards, whoever the most popular bands in the world are, they will typically put out an album every four years,” Rubin said in a 2009 radio series interview. “So, let’s say two albums as an eight year cycle. And think of the growth or change between those two albums. The idea that The Beatles made thirteen albums in seven years and went through that arc of change... it can’t be done. Truthfully, I think of it as proof of God, because it’s beyond man’s ability.”



Love that quote.
[/quote]
The Beatles output was incredible no doubt about that but it was a different time when you had to sell records to make any money. No money in touring then like there is now.

[peteb]

Seeing the reverence that some people here still seem to hold the Beatles after all this time, you can see what Lennon was getting at when he made the famous statement about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus!

[BetaFunk]

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360532222' post='1972003']
Seeing the reverence that some people here still seem to hold the Beatles after all this time, you can see what Lennon was getting at when he made the famous statement about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus!
[/quote]
Absolutely. As someone who saw Beatlemania (and saw the Fab Four in the flesh) unfold upon the world i do admit that although i bought all the LPs i was never a real fan and at the time they were never thought of as they are now. They have become a group that you can't seem to criticise. You could have done this in the 60s and wouldn't have got into much of an argument about it. It would just have been your opinion. You'll soon be shouted down if you have the cheek to criticise nowadays. That's what i find amazing and how and what they have become.

[lowdowner]

considering that this is a bass players site, I find this discussion almost surreal.

In the book 'bass masters - paul mccartney' by tony bacon and gareth morgan (a bit of a 'must read' the authors talk a lot about their influence. Particularly that they tended to listen to US bass players and music and imported those influences into the UK, often adding their own twist. Good examples would be Joe Mauldin (Buddy Holly) and Elvis's bass player Bill Black. Paul McCartney also listened a lot to James Jamerson - who Mccartney said was his hero. He would have the motown records sent over to listen to before they were released... The first time motown riffs were heard, were through the beatles music in the UK. To name just a few...