Cuica Cafezinho wrote:

Holy Crap. Are you a beneficiary of the George Martin family?

Nah... but before the Beatles, Rock 'n' Roll pretty much meant Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly or Fats Domino or Bo Diddley or Gene Vincent or Bill Haley or the crowd at Sun...

Patrick Walberg wrote:

The Beatles took Black music, changed it to meet their own taste and then fed it back to a wider audience.   They were the "first" in some aspects, but rock and roll was just one more thing whites stole from blacks.  Ike Turner really created rock and roll in my opinion.  However, he will always be remembered for beating up Tina Turner first.

Funny, John Lennon said it was Chuck Berry...

Cherrystone wrote:
IRS
Arms Expert
Pizza Expert
Audio engineer

Damn, you have a hell of a resume. Or you just like to play top dog & be right all the time, come hell or high water.

Or do you just like to follow me around and hump my leg?

Audio Engineer - Yep. (Russco Electroncs Mfg / Sound Stage).

IRS - yep - just retired last year.

Arms - dunno about being any kind of an expert but I have been shooting for over 35 years - I might just have learned a little something about which end the bullet comes out

Pizza - Well, yeah. I grew up in Europe and have eaten a few at real pizza joints - it ain't nothing like American pizza 

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Funny, John Lennon said it was Chuck Berry...

Lennon listened to a lot of Chuck Berry, so maybe that's who he felt created it?  Ike Turner certainly is in there too.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Lennon listened to a lot of Chuck Berry, so maybe that's who he felt created it?  Ike Turner certainly is in there too.

And I think you make a very good point (but I could just be tripping). Music is really an evolutionary process. Every artist is influenced by one (or many) styles. Sometimes they just copy, and sometimes they add their own "twists" to make it their own. Whose to really say where it all started?

Orca Bay Images wrote:

U2
Brian Wilson
Nirvana
Queen
Billy Joel
Lenny Kravitz
The Grateful Dead
Sophie Hawkins
Aerosmith
Soundgarden

http://www.spinner.com/2009/09/09/beatl … the-fab-f/

You can add the Rolling Stones and Beach Boys (not just Brian Wilson) as well as Led Zeppelin, Heart, Joan Jett, the Eagles, Prince, ELO, Oasis, Blur, Pulp, The Verve, Radiohead, Queen, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Elton John, The Byrds, Nirvana, Coldplay, Green Day, U2, Deep Purple, R.E.M., The Police, Cheap Trick, Crosby, Stills & Nash, Soundgarden, Jimi Hendrix, Joe Cocker, Frank Sinatra, Phil Collins, Peter Gabriel, Elvis Costello, Alice Cooper, Kiss, Guns 'n' Roses, The Ramones, Black Sabbath, Metallica, The Smiths, Tori Amos, Badfinger... the list is long and distinguished.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Lennon listened to a lot of Chuck Berry, so maybe that's who he felt created it?  Ike Turner certainly is in there too.

It was pointed out shortly after Ike's death that he started Rock n roll. Not surprising, seeing that it's roots come from Blues and he was a Blues player.

Eliza C wrote:
Fucking A!
I get the feeling I am stepping on a scared cow but I just don't get them at all. I feel like the kid with the Emperor's new clothes.
Maybe I'm tone deaf or something

No, you don't get them.

Not many bands, if any, could talk about getting a blow job and get away with it back in the 60's.

One of the things you don't get is what the Beatles did for the music industry, not just for music. Did you see the original cover for "Yesterday and Today"? (1966)

By the way, the album cover was BANNED and the records had to be sent back to be destroyed. Surviving albums are worth a mint today.



Did you know the Beatles were the first to include song lyrics with their albums?

The Beatles were instrumental in exploring new sounds via the electronic medium, things that are taken for granted today. They were the pioneers. You really need to listen to their work from "Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" on up to get an appreciation for their manipulation of music and sound.

Also consider that The Beatles weaved a tapestry of characters unmatched by anyone since. They created a world of wonderment with characters and situations which at times crossed over from songs to albums.

Have you had a chance to listen to their song, "Piggies"? Such a simple song, whimsical in it's approach, most likely one of the songs you consider "childish". I encourage you to listen to that short and "childish" song. You will be very surprised as to what it truly is about. Just, REALLY listen to it. I use that as an example solely because it is very short and sounds like a children's song. It isn't.

They also pioneered the Music Video as we know it today.

That's how The Beatles worked.

Beyond their music and very important were their personalities. Never since and possibly never will be again.

There is obviously quite a bit about the group you do not know and that's fine. Not everyone is going to "get them" or realize their contribution to music and culture.

Suffice to say, The Beatles are solidified in history and for good reason(s).

-Koa-
www.borikenwarrior.com
www.facebook.com/borikenwarriorstudiosmodels

Garry k wrote:
I am sure they will all be "in the history books "

but people won't know their music or care

Quick - Name 3 popular musical artists from 500 yrs ago

Exactly.


Ponders - awww man, there **must** be a Monty Python skit in here somewhere

Presley ONeil wrote:
I didn't even know helter skelter was a Beatles song.. Gotta listen to it now.

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:
It wasn't. Don't believe the crazy old hippies (LSD, right?).

Helter Skelter was a Guns and Roses song.

"Helter Skelter" was written by Paul McCartney...that is fact.

Garry k wrote:
I am sure they will all be "in the history books "

but people won't know their music or care

Quick - Name 3 popular musical artists from 500 yrs ago

Lohkee wrote:
Exactly.

Ponders - awww man, there **must** be a Monty Python skit in here somewhere

I can name at least 2 famous musicians from 250 years ago: Mozart and Beethoven.  The Beatles will be in the history books just like those 2 guys.  Mozart and Beethoven were just a couple of young guys writing tunes and trying to make an impact in their time, just like Paul and John in theirs.

Lohkee - I have to be honest...I can't believe some of the statements you have been making.  A lot of them really don't reflect well on you, you know?

Like I said before - I get it, you're not a big fan of The Beatles...and you're not the only person who feels that way.  However, there are quite a few more people who feel that The Beatles WERE something pretty special than there are those who feel like they weren't.  So whose opinions should carry the most weight - those of tens of millions, or those of maybe a few thousand?  (Or maybe you're in an elite group that is smarter than the rest of us?!)

Seriously - I'm not trying to give you a hard time or make this personal.  I'm just saying that yours is a minority opinion.

Garry k wrote:
Quick - Name 3 popular musical artists from 500 yrs ago

There were so many great madrigal singers and lute players that I wouldn't know where to begin.

Monad Studios wrote:

There were so many great madrigal singers and lute players that I wouldn't know where to begin.

Funny, now I read(in history and music) about lutes and music of that period. Not one name.

But Mozart. Beethoven. Bach. Everyone knows. You just need to be in a time period where people are "into" music and documenting it well. And do something to make history of course.

Garry k wrote:
I am sure they will all be "in the history books "

but people won't know their music or care

Quick - Name 3 popular musical artists from 500 yrs ago

Given the lack of any way to record those artists, it is no surprise that they are less known. Nevertheless, if you've been in a Church, you may have heard works by John Browne, Edmund Turges, or Hugh Kellyk.

On the other hand, if we just move it up 200 years and say name popular musical artists from 300 years ago, how many of us haven't heard of:

Beethoven, Mozart, Krebs, Bach?

Heck, maybe in 300 years, someone will be singing  "Roll Over, Beatles"...

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Lennon listened to a lot of Chuck Berry, so maybe that's who he felt created it?  Ike Turner certainly is in there too.

Chuck Berry, all the guys that were at Sun, Buddy Holly, Ike, and a bunch of other people that most people have never heard of. But Chuck, Buddy, Bill Haley, Ike, Little Richard and that bunch at Sun (which includes Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbinson, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash, Howlin' Wolf) - my guess is they go down in history as the groups and individuals that created rock 'n' roll - and the Beatles go down as the group that most transformed it.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Chuck Berry, all the guys that were at Sun, Buddy Holly, Ike, and a bunch of other people that most people have never heard of. But Chuck, Buddy, Bill Haley, Ike, Little Richard and that bunch at Sun (which includes Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbinson, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash, Howlin' Wolf) - my guess is they go down in history as the groups and individuals that created rock 'n' roll - and the Beatles go down as the group that most transformed it.

That bunch at Sun includes my Grandmother's cousin Sam Phillips who founded Sun, and first recorded those guys.  He invited me to family reunions.  The Phillips clan is a hoot to hang out with.

Lohkee wrote:

Really? What serious musician was influenced by the Beatles? Cites, please.

Presley ONeil wrote:

Funny, now I read(in history and music) about lutes and music of that period. Not one name.

But Mozart. Beethoven. Bach. Everyone knows. You just need to be in a time period where people are "into" music and documenting it well. And do something to make history of course.

Was your source Youtube?

-Koa- wrote:
No, you don't get them.

Not many bands, if any, could talk about getting a blow job and get away with it back in the 60's.

One of the things you don't get is what the Beatles did for the music industry, not just for music. Did you see the original cover for "Yesterday and Today"? (1966)

By the way, the album cover was BANNED and the records had to be sent back to be destroyed. Surviving albums are worth a mint today.



Did you know the Beatles were the first to include song lyrics with their albums?

The Beatles were instrumental in exploring new sounds via the electronic medium, things that are taken for granted today. They were the pioneers. You really need to listen to their work from "Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" on up to get an appreciation for their manipulation of music and sound.

Also consider that The Beatles weaved a tapestry of characters unmatched by anyone since. They created a world of wonderment with characters and situations which at times crossed over from songs to albums.

Have you had a chance to listen to their song, "Piggies"? Such a simple song, whimsical in it's approach, most likely one of the songs you consider "childish". I encourage you to listen to that short and "childish" song. You will be very surprised as to what it truly is about. Just, REALLY listen to it. I use that as an example solely because it is very short and sounds like a children's song. It isn't.

They also pioneered the Music Video as we know it today.

That's how The Beatles worked.

Beyond their music and very important were their personalities. Never since and possibly never will be again.

There is obviously quite a bit about the group you do not know and that's fine. Not everyone is going to "get them" or realize their contribution to music and culture.

Suffice to say, The Beatles are solidified in history and for good reason(s).

-Koa-
www.borikenwarrior.com
www.facebook.com/borikenwarriorstudiosmodels

I didn't say they didn't contribute to culture. And I am aware of the points you make.
I just don't think their contribution was as avant garde or influential as often claimed. And I still think their music is now dated.

Look we can for example in cinema appreciate that Spielberg has made an undoubted impact on cinema and popular culture. That doesn't mean that as enjoyable as they may be Close Encounters or ET have any kind of weight to them. By contrast, we may find Tarkovsky movies turgid in comparison, less well known, but they are far more important in terms of impact on Art and influencing film making and  changing cinema. That is not to say all Spielberg movies are populist sentimental dross. Schindler's List for example is a powerful movie by contrast. Similarly not everything the Beatles did was groundbreaking - most of it was dross. Everyone for example goes on about The Revolver album and I have heard it a hundred times. I still don't think it is anywhere near as avant garde as Paint it Black or The Aftermath album which came out the same year. Those do not sound dated even now. Just as you can take any freeze frame of a Tarkovsky movie and put it in a port here and it would still look edgy.

csjacksonphotography wrote:
The Beatles made Tomorrow Never Knows, She's So Heavy and Eleanor Rigby.

Three of the most innovative songs ever made.

Just not in the same league as this innovative wise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANAf7xfipNI

Using Ofra Haza was profound in terms of musical innovation and a glimpse of hope in unifying Arab and Jewish culture. And while the songs you cite sound incredibly dated The Temple of Love is as powerful now as it was then; and incredibly beautiful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofra_Haza

You will note at the end of that on TOTP that the commentator just doesn't get it. He'd no doubt get the Beatles. I think bands like Bauhaus and The Sisters of Mercy have had a more profound influence on Art than the Beatles have.

I will ask anyone to look at both these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6d8eKvegLI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51UH_u7WxCo

And honestly tell me which is the one that sends shivers down your spine, stands the test of time etc.

And don't get me started on that egg man walrus dross.

I am not the only person sharing this view btw:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2003/no … popandrock

So to me The Beatles haven't stood the test of time. And ultimately that is what needs to happen for them to have more than a fleeting mention in history books.

Eliza C wrote:

Just not in the same league as this innovative wise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANAf7xfipNI

Using Ofra Haza was profound in terms of musical innovation and a glimpse of hope in unifying Arab and Jewish culture. And while the songs you cite sound incredibly dated The Temple of Love is as powerful now as it was then; and incredibly beautiful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofra_Haza

You will note at the end of that on TOTP that the commentator just doesn't get it. He'd no doubt get the Beatles. I think bands like Bauhaus and The Sisters of Mercy have had a more profound influence on Art than the Beatles have.

I will ask anyone to look at both these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6d8eKvegLI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51UH_u7WxCo

And honestly tell me which is the one that sends shivers down your spine, stands the test of time etc.

And don't get me started on that egg man walrus dross.

I am not the only person sharing this view btw:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2003/no … popandrock

So to me The Beatles haven't stood the test of time. And ultimately that is what needs to happen for them to have more than a fleeting mention in history books.

By that standard, James Brown and the Famous Flames/JB's have songs that were made in the 60's and 70's that sound like they were made yesterday.

As a matter of fact, you can not have a party in Chicago without playing at least one James Brown and Michael Jackson song.

Monad Studios wrote:

There were so many great madrigal singers and lute players that I wouldn't know where to begin.

lol

csjacksonphotography wrote:
By that standard, James Brown and the Famous Flames/JB's have songs that were made in the 60's and 70's that sound like they were made yesterday.

As a matter of fact, you can not have a party in Chicago without playing at least one James Brown and Michael Jackson song.

Longevity in terms of popularity is no indication of innovation or still sounding edgy. If that were the case Mustang Sally would be regarded that way as every pub in the UK plays it in a selection on a loop. All it means is that it is music that is most MOR to most people. And I would think to many people it actually just sounds dated and tired.
I am sorry I can't agree at all Michael Jackson or James Brown down sound a little dated to say the least.
By contrast The Doors from  the '60's or Bowie from the 70's or Roxy Music do not. I think to get marked in history books Art or Music has to be innovative and influential. That isn't to say there is anything wrong with enjoying them - I enjoy Boney M and Billy Idol but I don't think they are as groundbreaking as the aforementioned.

And popular music tends by its nature to be momentary thing often. And that is how I see the Beatles: immensely popular but no longer relevant or influential other than on the commerical MOR scene: so yes you get Beatles covers and they are still played at weddings and in supermarkets but I wouldn't place too much value on that. Rather like for example music Hall stars of the early twentieth century. Hugely popular but now forgotten as innovators of the swing and blues eras came along like Count Basie and Benny Goodman or Muddie Waters - who have stood the test of time; as have classical composers like Benjamin Britten and Elgar. I think The Beatles will be in the history books for being popular but I can't see their music influencing anyone radical  in 40 years time. Bowie The Sex Pistols, Bauhaus, The early Stones, The Doors yes.

I'd go as far as saying The legacy of The Beatles is the stifling of modern British music. Whereas the Pistols gave it a much needed injection of adrenlain.

I also thing something doesn't have to be that popular or well known or even have popular longevity to have been more noteworthy historically. Vorticism for example is unknown art movement by the majority of people and short lived but it's influence was profound. An art movement of 1914 influencing the architecture you see in my avatar forty years later and still looking more 'modern' than half the crap that goes up now that is devoid of vision.

And even influencing photographers artists designers and architects now. Again an example from the same photographer and the same Brutalist architecture:


I cannot agree more with John Lydon on The Beatles:
“[The Beatles] started out as a rock "n" roll imitation and a covers band [a reference to their early days when they covered the hits of the day]," the Daily Express quoted him, as telling on an interview. “They spent a few years learning their craft before they decided they were original geniuses," he said. “There was no great heart in anything they did. It was all a cultivated operation, and therefore manufactured," he added.

http://entertainment.oneindia.in/music/ … 11007.html

This band will continue to influence Art cinema photography fashion and music a hundred years from now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6GDdKrQ8EI

Eliza C wrote:
And even influencing photographers artists and architects now.

Speaking of photography and Pink Floyd, one of my most favorite album photos ever:

Justin wrote:

Speaking of photography and Pink Floyd, one of my most favorite album photos ever:

Yes I think that's cool. I also can see Pink Floyd as innovative even though they are not my taste.

Eliza C wrote:

Longevity in terms of popularity is no indication of innovation or still sounding edgy. If that were the case Mustang Sally would be regarded that way as every pub in the UK plays it in a selection on a loop. All it means is that it is music that is most MOR to most people. And I would think to many people it actually just sounds dated and tired.
I am sorry I can't agree at all Michael Jackson or James Brown down sound a little dated to say the least.
By contrast The Doors from  the '60's or Bowie from the 70's or Roxy Music do not. I think to get marked in history books Art or Music has to be innovative and influential. That isn't to say there is anything wrong with enjoying them - I enjoy Boney M and Billy Idol but I don't think they are as groundbreaking as the aforementioned.

And popular music tends by its nature to be momentary thing often. And that is how I see the Beatles: immensely popular but no longer relevant or influential other than on the commerical MOR scene: so yes you get Beatles covers and they are still played at weddings and in supermarkets but I wouldn't place too much value on that. Rather like for example music Hall stars of the early twentieth century. Hugely popular but now forgotten as innovators of the swing and blues eras came along like Count Basie and Benny Goodman or Muddie Waters - who have stood the test of time; as have classical composers like Benjamin Britten and Elgar. I think The Beatles will be in the history books for being popular but I can't see their music influencing anyone radical  in 40 years time. Bowie The Sex Pistols, Bauhaus, The early Stones, The Doors yes.

I'd go as far as saying The legacy of The Beatles is the stifling of modern British music. Whereas the Pistols gave it a much needed injection of adrenlain.

I also thing something doesn't have to be that popular or well known or even have popular longevity to have been more noteworthy historically. Vorticism for example is unknown art movement by the majority of people and short lived but it's influence was profound. An art movement of 1914 influencing the architecture you see in my avatar forty years later and still looking more 'modern' than half the crap that goes up now that is devoid of vision.

And even influencing photographers artists designers and architects now. Again an example from the same photographer and the same Brutalist architecture:


I cannot agree more with John Lydon on The Beatles:
“[The Beatles] started out as a rock "n" roll imitation and a covers band [a reference to their early days when they covered the hits of the day]," the Daily Express quoted him, as telling on an interview. “They spent a few years learning their craft before they decided they were original geniuses," he said. “There was no great heart in anything they did. It was all a cultivated operation, and therefore manufactured," he added.

http://entertainment.oneindia.in/music/ … 11007.html

Spoken by a man who was placed in a band created as an art exercise by Malcolm McClaren...

The Sex Pistols = The Monkees.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

lol

Gary Melton wrote:
I see a lot of Led Zeppelin and Queen, and I agree they are both VERY significant bands, worthy of contention...however, let me give you just one example of the impact the Doors have had on culture:

Try to imagine the movie "Apocalypse Now" without the Doors in the soundtrack.  I'm not trying to say that "Apocalypse Now" was a great movie, but it was certainly a significant movie in terms of cultural events.  Now extrapolate that further...'sorry, but I can't really imagine the second half of the 20th century without the Doors in it...

bah humbug, just try to imagine "Pink Floyd The Wall" without Pink Floyd's music in the soundtrack! :p

csjacksonphotography wrote:
Spoken by a man who was placed in a band created as an art exercise by Malcolm McClaren...

The Sex Pistols = The Monkees.

The difference is the word you unwittingly mention that seperates the excercise from the Beatles . Your word - I didn't put it in your sentence:

ART

The whole of the Beatles music volumes will never have the impact on Art cinema fashion and society that this one clip has:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6GDdKrQ8EI

One can equate The Pistols with Dadaism.
And The Beatles with stuff like Vladimir Tretchikoff's Chinese girl.

I dread to think what the world would look like fashion music and  art wise if The Pistols had never come along. Maybe The Beatles would have been important. But thanks to The Pistols their influence is dead. We'd all probably still be wearing beads and flares and saying 'far out man' in a scouse accent if it hadn't been for punk.

Eliza C wrote:

The difference is the word you unwittingly mention that seperates the excercise from the Beatles . Your word - I didn't put it in your sentence:

ART

The whole of the Beatles music volumes will never have the impact on Art cinema fashion and society that this one clip has:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6GDdKrQ8EI

One can equate The Pistols with Dadaism.
And The Beatles with stuff like Vladimir Tretchikoff's Chinese girl.

I dread to think what the world would look like fashion music and  art wise if The Pistols had never come along. Maybe The Beatles would have been important. But thanks to The Pistols their influence is dead. We'd all probably still be wearing beads and flares and saying 'far out man' in a scouse accent if it hadn't been for punk.

Oh, well......


To each it's won...