csjacksonphotography wrote:
Oh, well......


To each it's won...

True indeed. We all have different tastes. And that is fine.

But I just don't think that The Beatles deserve a place in the history books re innovation. Popularity yes.

But let's just for example have a look at fashion now.
Which is going to look more edgy - a Westwood Seditionaries shirt and a studded leather jacket or a Nehru jacket and Lennon hippy hair and flares? I just think the Pistols legacy in everything from Art to fashion has and will last a lot longer than the Beatles. It's more than just the music. The vast majority of UK fashion designers from students to the established ones are still influenced by The Sex Pistols. And while supermarkets play The Beatles in the aisles to sooth consumers the Pistols will always remain too radical for such and thus continue for many years to inspire creatives. The Shock of the New is not something that could be thought of in the same sentence as the Beatles since the sixties - but The Pistols it still applies.

London Fog wrote:

Was your source Youtube?

Did you miss the parentheses? Again, really?? You can't comprehend a forum post and you're making fun of me?

Eliza C wrote:
True indeed. We all have different tastes. And that is fine.

But I just don't think that The Beatles deserve a place in the history books re innovation. Popularity yes.

But let's just for example have a look at fashion now.
Which is going to look more edgy - a Westwood Seditionaries shirt and a studded leather jacket or a Nehru jacket and Lennon hippy hair and flares? I just think the Pistols legacy in everything from Art to fashion has and will last a lot longer than the Beatles. It's more than just the music. The vast majority of UK fashion designers from students to the established ones are still influenced by The Sex Pistols. And while supermarkets play The Beatles in the aisles to sooth consumers the Pistols will always remain too radical for such and thus continue for many years to inspire creatives. The Shock of the New is not something that could be thought of in the same sentence as the Beatles since the sixties - but The Pistols it still applies.

This thread should be in Soap Box.  It's almost like a religion or politics thing.
Kinda reminds me of the battles between the rockers and mods or rock and rollers vs. disco.

Either way, have you ever seen early Beatles pictures before they wound up on the Ed Sullivan show and became famous?  They wore punk clothes.  They wore leather jackets and skinny jeans.  They were wild and out of control in the clubs, for example Lennon wearing toilet seats around his neck on stage.  Look it up.

They had to be tamed by their manager in order to be accepted by US television.  They were asked to wear suits and to contain their movements.  That's why they look stiff on the Ed Sullivan show.  I could go on.

HWM Photography wrote:
The Funk Brothers...the greatest band most people have never known (but most have heard)

Completely agree, the backbone of the Motown era and much more versatile and successful than MFSB.

Maybe the three need to be split into semi-genres ?
One rock, one electronic, one soul ..........,.one reggae

The Wailers, with Bob Marley of course.

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.

As popular as the Sex Pistols are, they weren't the first punk group. Punk goes way back even when they were kids. So even their style wasn't original. They too were influenced by other punk bands.

The Pistol and Dadaism analogy is a good one, but again, keep in mind the Dadaism analogy style of music and clothing was around before them. In the end, both the Beatles and Sex Pistols had more in common than differences. Both weren't original, but they had a big impact on the masses.

I'm not a fan of the group Depeche Mode. But they have a large fan base, been around forever and have had a major influence on the electronic scene. And they too, like The Sex Pistols weren't the first in their field, but we know that they'd go into that same history book.

Legacys 7 wrote:
As popular as the Sex Pistols are, they weren't the first punk group. Punk goes way back even when they were kids. So even their style wasn't original. They too were influenced by other punk bands.

Yes, the Pistols were not the first punk band but they were the first to have an impact on the mainstream in the UK.

Be aware that UK meaning of punk =//= US of A meaning of punk. Much American punk would just be new wave / power pop in the UK.

photoimager wrote:
Yes, the Pistols were not the first punk band but they were the first to have an impact on the mainstream in the UK.

Be aware that UK meaning of punk =//= US of A meaning of punk. Much American punk would just be new wave / power pop in the UK.

Yes I know the history of the group. But my point here is, neither were original, but had an impact on the masses. One could argue that the Ramones were the first and had an influence on the U.K. punk rock scene, seeing that they were before the Sex Pistols.

Gary Melton wrote:
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?

Well no, Gary, I don't know. Perhaps a good bottle of scotch or a competent therapist might help you sort it all out? Because it's all about you. I don't drool over, well, you get the idea.

Gary Melton wrote:
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?!)

It's not that I'm not a big fan of the Beatles; probably more along the lines of I'm not really a huge fan of anyone (except perhaps Leonard Cohen). I don't care much for country music at all, but there are some country songs that I really like, just as there are Beatles songs that I enjoy to this very day.

The Beatles were extremely popular. No doubt about it. They had a great manager and followed the market for as long as they could before self-imploding. The "Fad-Four" were just that. Basically, a flash-in-the-pan (albeit extremely popular and profitable) with no staying power. Perhaps, in a way, their maturing as individuals and musicians was their ultimate undoing. So, when we talk about historical significance 500 years from now, what are we really talking about here? I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.

And no, I don't think that I am smarter than anyone else and there is no secret club. I just don't see all of the things, such as the "stunning" innovations, that the Beatles get credit for by their fans. Putting the lyrics of your songs in an LP rates you a place in the history books 500 years from now? Sorry.   

Gary Melton wrote:
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.

Well, you are probably spot on the money here. Us old people do like to hold on tightly to the days of our youth. They were, after all, the "good old days" and pretty much all we have left now (other than doctor's appointments, trying to have a decent bowel movement, etc).

In 35 years, when we have all passed, who will even remember the Beatles? Kind of like the Rocky Horror Picture Show

Justin wrote:
Remembering from my days as an early adult, when I'd take up a position and mere facts wouldn't necessarily sway me. (Should've been a Soapbox back then, I guess.)

I was arguing with a Beatles fan about their lack of influence. In his rejoinder, he finally said, "...and if it weren't for the Beatles, you wouldn't have that mop of hair on your head." He was right, and I knew it, and pretty well shut up.

The Beatles had huge input on the changing fashion, attitudes, and mores of society back then. Huge. Like I said, I'm no fan. But their influence is ubiquitous and pervasive.

This is a fact. People forget, when the Beatles came here, they were shunned by many for having "long hair." Today, the style wouldn't be classified as long. Men during that time, adopted this style. Including, The Monkees and many of the 1960's bands.

BlueMoonPics wrote:
This thread should be in Soap Box.  It's almost like a religion or politics thing.
Kinda reminds me of the battles between the rockers and mods or rock and rollers vs. disco.

Either way, have you ever seen early Beatles pictures before they wound up on the Ed Sullivan show and became famous?  They wore punk clothes.  They wore leather jackets and skinny jeans.  They were wild and out of control in the clubs, for example Lennon wearing toilet seats around his neck on stage.  Look it up.

They had to be tamed by their manager in order to be accepted by US television.  They were asked to wear suits and to contain their movements.  That's why they look stiff on the Ed Sullivan show.  I could go on.

I don't think so. I just am trying to work out a criteria. Of course if it's in terms of popularity The Beatles would have to be included. But when we think of historical importance we usually use other criteria such as the legacy, innovation etc. So I think there is no harm discussing that without nastiness.

The Beatles didn't wear punk clothes. The fashions of punk have been well documented by cultural observers. The idea was brocolage which was unique to punk unless you consider Surrealism which did the same. Taking incongruous items and assembling them together subverting their original meaning. Other subcultures had done it before to a degree - but nothing like as radically and comprhensively as punk. It raided the wardrobes of the past as diverse as pirates and tribal wear with elements of city gents, highland tweeds and tartans and teddy boys. Then it threw things like fetish wear and latex  into the mix with surreal hairstyles and theatrical make up. This was and remains a revolutionary technique in fashion and art. Steampunk for example still does this and it is also a popular construct in cinematic imagery.

By contrast the Beatles early wardrobe was of it's time not innovative in it's time. It was simply a style which had been pioneered by Elvis etc then changed as modern jazz became popular: they stole the look from the followers of the style in the McInnes novel Absolute Beginners and the coffee bar beatnik followers of Sartre  and they were late to do it. The Beatles later look influenced the hippy look but again robbed the look from others - and enough said about hippy style (or lack of it) the better!

Russian Katarina wrote:
NKOTB.
Take That.
N'Sync.

Just kidding.

How about Kraftwerk, Queen and Pink Floyd?

Beatles and Stones are such obvious choices.

I've already put Kraftwerk on the list. Coming from the Detroit area, you can't get around their influence. These guy's influence goes back to the 70's, but they've been around since the early 60's under a different name. Were they the first to experiment with electronic music? No. But their influence on Techno, House, Hip Hop and several bands from the 80's and present is very big. If Giorgio Moroder had a band, I'd add him to the list too. He had an influence on Kraft Werk's style during the Disco era and really is the one that got the House and Trance thing started indirectly when him and Donna Summers got together. You can hear the elements of his music in the electronic scene.

Russian Katarina wrote:
NKOTB.
Take That.
N'Sync.

Just kidding.

How about Kraftwerk, Queen and Pink Floyd?

Beatles and Stones are such obvious choices.

Definitely agree with Kraftwerk as innovative.
And always a good excuse to play this one
Great vintage catwalk footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdZDhpkDziE

Legacys 7 wrote:
This is a fact. People forget, when the Beatles came here, they were shunned by many for having "long hair." Today, the style wouldn't be classified as long. Men during that time, adopted this style. Including, The Monkees and many of the 1960's bands.

This film was a mainstream British movie made in 1960.
Let's not pretend that a band from Liverpool created the scene or the fashion. Check out Oliver Reed's mop top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4ZWsGHb2gU

For that matter the theme tune knocks the hell out of anything the early Beatles did and as you can see the hip style already existed daddy-o. The early Beatles looked like teddy boys at this time.

Love me Do, a safe ditty in comparison , was not released until two years later. America may have been a bit behind the beat scene at the time but so was Liverpool in the early days. They may have been the first band to bring the US the style but they were most definitely not the innovators of it.

here is the song with words from 1959
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMx5TjlpCWA

Artist was Adam Faith who had been going 5 years before The Beatles released their first song


His hair was considered long.

Eliza C wrote:

This film was a mainstream British movie made in 1960.
Let's not pretend that a band from Liverpool created the scene. Check out Oliver Reed's mop top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4ZWsGHb2gU

For that matter the theme tune knocks the hell out of anything the early Beatles did and as you can see the hip style already existed daddy-o. The early Beatles looked like teddy boys at this time.

Love me Do, a safe ditty in comparison , was not released until two years later. America may have been a bit behind the beat scene at the time but so was Liverpool in the early days.

here is the song with words from 1959
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMx5TjlpCWA

Artist was Adam Faith who had been going 3 years before The Beatles


His hair was considered long.

Let's rewind back my quote that you read out of context. Where in my post did I state that the Beatles started the fashion style that we're talking about? What I'd said is, the same style that they brought from the U.K. had a big impact on the U.S. due to the Beatles. This same point is made also by me, regarding the Sex Pistols. They didn't start the punk style nor were the first. But they had a major impact here in the States. See my other reply, regarding the Sex Pistols.

Legacys 7 wrote:

Let's rewind back my quote that you read out of context. Where in my post did I state that the Beatles started the fashion style that we're talking about? What I'd said is, the same style that they brought from the U.K. had a big impact on the U.S. due to the Beatles. This same point is made also by me, regarding the Sex Pistols. They didn't start the punk style nor were the first. But they had a major impact here in the States. See my other reply, regarding the Sex Pistols.

Same here.  I didn't say the Beatles were punks or invented punk clothing.  Leather jackets and jeans have been around for a long time.  We all know that.  Beatles didn't create the hair style either.  Before they showed up in the states they got a haircut in France somewhere.  When they showed up on TV it was shocking to the general population.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Let's rewind back my quote that you read out of context. Where in my post did I state that the Beatles started the fashion style that we're talking about? What I'd said is, the same style that they brought from the U.K. had a big impact on the U.S. due to the Beatles. This same point is made also by me, regarding the Sex Pistols. They didn't start the punk style nor were the first. But they had a major impact here in the States. See my other reply, regarding the Sex Pistols.

It doesn't matter - it wasn't a crit of what you said I just wanted to point out that the beat scene existed well before merseybeat and the early artists in it had the style The Beatles later adopted.
Whereas I think The Pistols were if not the first certainly the most innovative in terms of fashion and both they and the movement that was undoubtedly centered on them has given us a poweful legacy - McClaren Westwood Pam Hogg Mugler Gaultier etc ect plus the later wave such as Jo Corre Westwood's son.

BlueMoonPics wrote:
Same here.  I didn't say the Beatles were punks or invented punk clothing.  Leather jackets and jeans have been around for a long time.  We all know that.  Beatles didn't create the hair style either.  Before they showed up in the states they got a haircut in France somewhere.  When they showed up on TV it was shocking to the general population.

You said the Beatles wore punk clothing. They didn't. Punk clothing isn't about  leather jackets and skinny jeans though they may feature in the bricolage. There is a huge difference. I think this is something Americans don't appreciate: US punk and UK punk are worlds apart as far as fashion is concerned. I guess you must be thinking of The Ramones style. Whereas we think Adam Ant Jordan Siouxsie John Lydon etc which was completely different .




And that is still shocking in terms of music and fashion to the general populace.

BlueMoonPics wrote:

Same here.  I didn't say the Beatles were punks or invented punk clothing.  Leather jackets and jeans have been around for a long time.  We all know that.  Beatles didn't create the hair style either.  Before they showed up in the states they got a haircut in France somewhere.  When they showed up on TV it was shocking to the general population.

Exactly. And that's why I'd pointed out in my other post that during those years, their hair style here in the States was considered long and something that the older generation as well as the younger weren't use to seeing nor (older generation) comfortable with.

Eliza C wrote:

It doesn't matter - it wasn't a crit of what you said I just wanted to point out that the beat scene existed well before merseybeat and the early artists in it had the style The Beatles later adopted.
Whereas I think The Pistols were if not the first certainly the most innovative in terms of fashion and both they and the movement that was undoubtedly centered on them has given us a poweful legacy - McClaren Westwood Pam Hogg Mugler Gaultier etc ect plus the later wave such as Jo Corre Westwood's son.

Trust, I know a lot about the Beat scene as well as the art history analogies that you're using to make (I'm an art major) your points.  But again, regardless of the Beatles lack of creativity in the fashion, due to their mainstream presence, they had a big impact on the masses, more so than the beat scene by making it more mainstream and accepted. Same applies to the Sex Pistols. There are a lot groups and artist that adopt other's styles and make it their own, adding their little twist. But the point still remains the same, they weren't the innovators of the punk rock scene. They brought to the mainstream and added their twist. This is no more different than Michael Jackson using both the robot dance during the 1970's and the Moonwalk from the 1980's. These were dances that were started by kids on the streets, but he added his twist by changing the name, back slide to Moonwalk. And many assumed that he started the dance style which included, the wave, pop locking, glide etc.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Trust, I know a lot about the Beat scene as well as the art history analogies that you're using to make (I'm an art major) your points.  But again, regardless of the Beatles lack of creativity in the fashion, due to their mainstream presence, they had a big impact on the masses, more so than the beat scene by making it more mainstream and accepted. Same applies to the Sex Pistols. There are a lot groups and artist that adopt other's styles and make it their own, adding their little twist. But the point still remains the same, they weren't the innovators of the punk rock scene. They brought to the mainstream and added their twist. This is no more different than Michael Jackson using both the robot dance during the 1970's and the Moonwalk from the 1980's. These were dances that were started by kids on the streets, but he added his twist by changing the name, back slide to Moonwalk. And many assumed that he started the dance style which included, the wave, pop locking, glide etc.

I see your point but contest it. Yes The Damned were before them and of course there were bands like Dr Feelgood and Iggy and the Stooges but without the Pistols there would have not been the explosion that brought it all together. And of course McClaren and Westwood were the fashion innovators behind it all. So it is profoundly different relationship with The Pistols at the epicentre of the fashion and art explosion.

And whereas The Beatles made Beat safe for mass consumption, The Sex Pistols were altogether a harder pill for the masses to swallow and still haven't. That is why they still remain radical and influential whereas The Beatles are for old people to dance to at weddings.

Do you think I have a valid point re Tretchikoff v obscure (to the masses) Art movements like Vorticism in terms of popularity v historical importance?

Monad Studios wrote:
The Beatles have had more influence on arguments about musical influences than any other band in history.

You got that right.

It helps to have lived through it then, to grasp the differences in societal lifestyles and attitudes pre-1970(ish) and post-1970(ish). Attire. Attitudes toward government. Attitudes toward business and employees. Toward the environment. Toward war. About sex. About drugs. About authority. About politics. About music.

It was a systemic adjustment, not just for those who thump the tub about things they don't like, but at every layer. And the Beatles were an icon of that social tectonic shift. (And I still don't own a single song of theirs.)

Eliza C wrote:
You said the Beatles wore punk clothing. They didn't. Punk clothing isn't about  leather jackets and skinny jeans though they may feature in the bricolage. There is a huge difference. I think this is something Americans don't appreciate: US punk and UK punk are worlds apart as far as fashion is concerned. I guess you must be thinking of The Ramones style. Whereas we think Adam Ant Jordan Siouxsie John Lydon etc which was completely different .



And that is still shocking in terms of music and fashion to the general populace.

I should have put "punk" in quotes.
The Sex Pistols had the word "sex" in their name.  Makes you look.

Justin wrote:

You got that right.

It helps to have lived through it then, to grasp the differences in societal lifestyles and attitudes pre-1970(ish) and post-1970(ish). Attire. Attitudes toward government. Attitudes toward business and employees. Toward the environment. Toward war. About sex. About drugs. About authority. About politics. About music.

It was a systemic adjustment, not just for those who thump the tub about things they don't like, but at every layer. And the Beatles were an icon of that social tectonic shift. (And I still don't own a single song of theirs.)

Exactly.  The Beatles were much more than just music.  They were the catalyst that changed everything.

Justin wrote:
You got that right.

It helps to have lived through it then, to grasp the differences in societal lifestyles and attitudes pre-1970(ish) and post-1970(ish). Attire. Attitudes toward government. Attitudes toward business and employees. Toward the environment. Toward war. About sex. About drugs. About authority. About politics. About music.

It was a systemic adjustment, not just for those who thump the tub about things they don't like, but at every layer. And the Beatles were an icon of that social tectonic shift. (And I still don't own a single song of theirs.)

Since the Beatles we have fucked the environment and the US have troops deployed in 150 nations and been involved with many wars. We have the world run by huge corporations with scant regard for individual workers and music was totally stagnated before punk. There is no long lasting influence of The Beatles on fashion Art or cinema in the way that punk has. Any questioning of authority owes more to punk than The Beatles. I didn't live through the fifties either but can appreciate what happened then in music re rock and roll had far more profound long lasting effect. You wouldn't have had the Beatles without it and you wouldn't have had The Pistols without it.

I don't own a single record of The Beatles either and neither do my parents who also consider them massively overated. They were Stones followers.

Eliza C wrote:

I see your point but contest it. Yes The Damned were before them and of course there were bands like Dr Feelgood and Iggy and the Stooges but without the Pistols there would have not been the explosion that brought it all together. And of course McClaren and Westwood were the fashion innovators behind it all. So it is profoundly different relationship with The Pistols at the epicentre of the fashion and art explosion.

And whereas The Beatles made Beat safe for mass consumption, The Sex Pistols were altogether a harder pill for the masses to swallow and still haven't. That is why they still remain radical and influential whereas The Beatles are for old people to dance to at weddings.

Do you think I have a valid point re Tretchikoff v obscure Art movements in terms of popularity v historical importance?

It doesn't matter which different directions that two groups impact has had. The point here is, they both had a major impact on the masses. Without the Beatles bringing it (long hair style) mainstream, we wouldn't see men with long hair today. Even the Hippies, as popular as they were, the mainstream artist brought it to the limelight and made it popular and accepted by the masses. To this day, we see men with long hair now, due to this. Even though the long hair styles today are from a different genre, it's roots started from them.

Regarding your art movement analogy, as far as I'm concerned, the analogy of the two styles fit, but it doesn't change the dynamic effect that both have had on the U.S. It is what it is. At the end of the day, the fans will speak regardless of our subjective feelings that we feel that they don't deserve to be in the U.S. history book. And I'd bet you, they'd be in that book. The Beatles are still being talked about.

Regarding the Sex Pistols. Who's debating their impact? What you're failing to accept is their common bond with the Beatles. Neither were the originators, but what is common over in the U.K. was new to us in the States. No different than your Jimmy Hendrix bringing a style of guitar playing to the U.K. but it's roots came from the Blues. OR, the Detroit techno groups from the 1980's that had a big impact on the U.K. sound, but a lot of their influence started over in Germany by Kraftwerk. The difference? The guys from Detroit added their twist and made it their own. Funky, funk, soul etc. Think, Afrika Bambatta's "Planet Rock." That's an example of the contemporary electronic sound during that time and to this date. And I gotta add the Chicago House scene to that equation too. That too is used in many of the Detroit techno groups that is very big over there.

Legacys 7 wrote:
It doesn't matter which different directions that two groups impact has had. The point here is, they both had a major impact on the masses. Without the Beatles bringing it (long hair style) mainstream, we wouldn't see men with long hair today. Even the Hippies, as popular as they were, the mainstream artist brought it to the limelight and made it popular and accepted by the masses. To this day, we see men with long hair now, due to this. Even though the long hair styles today are from a different genre, it's roots started from them.

Regarding your art movement analogy, as far as I'm concerned, the analogy of the two styles fit, but it doesn't change the dynamic effect that both have had on the U.S. It is what it is. At the end of the day, the fans will speak regardless of our subjective feelings that we feel that they don't deserve to be in the U.S. history book. And I'd bet you, they'd be in that book. The Beatles are still being talked about.

Regarding the Sex Pistols. Who's debating their impact? What you're failing to accept is their common bond with the Beatles. Neither were the originators, but what is common over in the U.K. was new to us in the States. No different than your Jimmy Hendrix bringing a style of guitar playing to the U.K. but it's roots came from the Blues. OR, the Detroit techno groups from the 1980's that had a big impact on the U.K. sound, but a lot of their influence started over in Germany by Kraftwerk. The difference? The guys from Detroit added their twist and made it their own. Funky, funk, soul etc. Think, Afrika Bambatta's "Planet Rock." That's an example of the contemporary electronic sound during that time and to this date. And I gotta add the Chicago House scene to that equation too. That too is used in many of the Detroit techno groups that is very big over there.

I have no doubt what you say is true re the masses love the Beatles but they also loved Trecthikoff. The latter will not be in any book in five years let alone fifty about Art history. The Beatles will be in history books about popular music for a long while but in fifty years time the Sex Pistols will be in the history books because of their legacy in terms of innovation on a variety of creative fields.
The centre of the punk movement was the Sex Pistols. McClaren and Westwood are the fashion originators and the latter is still the most important UK fashion designer in terms of innovation.  There is no equivalent with The Beatles who by your own admission were not fashion innovators though may well have brought that fashion to the USA.

Eliza C wrote:
Since the Beatles we have fucked the environment

We fucked it more pre-1970. A lot more.

and the US have troops deployed in 150 nations and been involved with many wars.

Nothing like the attitudes surrounding Vietnam.

We have the world run by huge corporations with scant regard for individual workers

We also have labor laws. We've seen a downtick in union membership because labor laws and better employer treatment has made them less relevant.

and music was totally stagnated before punk.

The late 60's and early 70's were a creative explosion. Comments on society, war, injustice. Complete shakeup in the way music was presented. No one listening to Chuck Berry or Bill Haley would envision the acid rock of Hendrix, the abstractions of Pink Floyd, or even the social commentary of what would be an "ordinary" group like the Temptations.

There is no long lasting influence of The Beatles on fashion Art or cinema in the way that punk has.

I can look at any long hair in the street and say, "The Beatles had a direct influence on that." I can look at my grandkids' purple mohawks and think, "Ah, that started with punk," although they'll most likely lose that by the time they're looking for a real job.

BTW, I consider the Who to be the progenitors of punk.

"I staggered back to the underground
And the breeze blew back my hair
I remember throwing punches around
And preaching from my chair"

Sounds punkish.

Any questioning of authority owes more to punk than The Beatles.

Well, I'm gobsmacked. The riots, the sit-ins, the demonstrations, the extreme polarization. I didn't see any qualitative societal uptick in that stuff once we got past that.

I didn't live through the fifties either but can appreciate what happened then in music re rock and roll had far more profound long lasting effect. You wouldn't have had the Beatles without it and you wouldn't have had The Pistols without it.

I agree with the first and last part of that. But for the change that happened, there was a catalyst at the crossroads. The Beatles weren't the only catalyst that pushed society into a different direction (that would come to include punk and rap and all the other evolutionary branches). But they were an iconic one.

I don't own a single record of The Beatles either and neither do my parents who also consider them massively overated. They were Stones followers.

I don't know that they were overrated. They just weren't all that appealing to me. I always enjoyed the baseline rock of the Stones - although once they hit "Start Me Up," I knew their time for making notable new music was apparently over.

Eliza C wrote:
I have no doubt what you say is true re the masses love the Beatles but they also loved Trecthikoff. The latter will not be in any book in five years let alone fifty about Art history. The Beatles will be in history books about popular music for a long while but in fifty years time the Sex Pistols will be in the history books because of their legacy in terms of innovation on a variety of creative fields.
The centre of the punk movement was the Sex Pistols. McClaren and Westwood are the fashion originators and the latter is still the most important UK fashion designer in terms of innovation.  There is no equivalent with The Beatles who by your own admission were not fashion innovators though may well have brought that fashion to the USA.

You're repeating yourself. I've already addressed this. And it leads right back to my same point. Neither were innovators of the fashion style, but due their mainstream presence and appeal, it made it easier to allow that movement or fashion style to be accepted or grow. I'm not here making a comparison between the two groups because there are also obvious difference in the direction in their music and life style. In the end, the point here is, they will be in the book due to their fan base. Without that fan base, there is no masses. Without the masses, there is no popularity and without popularity, in most cases you don't make it into the books.

Justin wrote:

Eliza C wrote:
Since the Beatles we have fucked the environment

We fucked it more pre-1970. A lot more.

and the US have troops deployed in 150 nations and been involved with many wars.

Nothing like the attitudes surrounding Vietnam.

We have the world run by huge corporations with scant regard for individual workers

We also have labor laws. We've seen a downtick in union membership because labor laws and better employer treatment has made them less relevant.

and music was totally stagnated before punk.

The late 60's and early 70's were a creative explosion. Comments on society, war, injustice. Complete shakeup in the way music was presented. No one listening to Chuck Berry or Bill Haley would envision the acid rock of Hendrix, the abstractions of Pink Floyd, or even the social commentary of what would be an "ordinary" group like the Temptations.

There is no long lasting influence of The Beatles on fashion Art or cinema in the way that punk has.

I can look at any long hair in the street and say, "The Beatles had a direct influence on that." I can look at my grandkids' purple mohawks and think, "Ah, that started with punk," although they'll most likely lose that by the time they're looking for a real job.

Any questioning of authority owes more to punk than The Beatles.

Well, I'm gobsmacked. The riots, the sit-ins, the demonstrations, the extreme polarization. I didn't see any qualitative societal uptick in that stuff once we got past that.

I didn't live through the fifties either but can appreciate what happened then in music re rock and roll had far more profound long lasting effect. You wouldn't have had the Beatles without it and you wouldn't have had The Pistols without it.

I agree with the first and last part of that. But for the change that happened, there was a catalyst at the crossroads. The Beatles weren't the only catalyst that pushed society into a different direction (that would come to include punk and rap and all the other evolutionary branches). But they were an iconic one.

I don't own a single record of The Beatles either and neither do my parents who also consider them massively overated. They were Stones followers.

I don't know that they were overrated. They just weren't all that appealing to me. I always enjoyed the baseline rock of the Stones - although once they hit "Start Me Up," I knew their time for making notable new music was apparently over.

legacys7 wrote:
Good point regarding rap. One could make the argument that NWA aka Niggas With Attitudes would go into the history books. Why? Their introduction to gangsta rap and it's influence across the country, including the west coast dress style from the hood, had a major impact on the masses. We may not like it, but they were controversial and their rap style of the hood was something that many could either relate to, due to them coming from the hood and it eventually becoming mainstream where rappers like Tupac Shukar got popular off of this genre of music. It was something that no one had heard nor seen before NWA.

Eliza C wrote:
ART

Tell you what.

Go ask an art curator which will sell for more and shows more talent?

The sketches by John Lennon

Or anything from the Sex Pistols...

Anyone who is honest is going to point out that John Lennon had more artistic talent in his toes than the Sex Pistols ever had.

BlueMoonPics wrote:
Either way, have you ever seen early Beatles pictures before they wound up on the Ed Sullivan show and became famous?  They wore punk clothes.  They wore leather jackets and skinny jeans.  They were wild and out of control in the clubs, for example Lennon wearing toilet seats around his neck on stage.  Look it up.

No, they wore "rocker" clothes. Punk wouldn't exist for another 20 years.

Eliza C wrote:
I don't own a single record of The Beatles either and neither do my parents who also consider them massively overated. They were Stones followers.

They should have listened to the Stones - who were massive fans of the Beatles and actually were taught to write songs by Lennon/McCartney as well as being given their first original hit by the Beatles.

Eliza C wrote:
in fifty years time the Sex Pistols will be in the history books because of their legacy in terms of innovation on a variety of creative fields.

Uh.... only if the history book is talking about the impact of Punk in the UK.

Fact is, UK punk wasn't that big a deal, still isn't. The Sex Pistols had a very limited impact on the music scene as a whole and an even smaller impact on global culture. Punk is a not a widespread movement.

Legacys 7 wrote:
You're repeating yourself. I've already addressed this. And it leads right back to my same point. Neither were innovators of the fashion style, but due their mainstream presence and appeal, it made it easier to allow that movement or fashion style to be accepted or grow. I'm not here making a comparison between the two groups because there are also obvious difference in the direction in their music and life style. In the end, the point here is, they will be in the book due to their fan base. Without that fan base, there is no masses. Without the masses, there is no popularity and without popularity, in most cases you don't make it into the books.

And I am having to repeat myself because you are not accepting the evidence. I have listed the designers - still at the forefront of UK fashion - who were very closely associated with the Sex Pistols specifically. McClaren and Westwood and the shop Sex, now still in Westwood's hands and called 'The World's End' http://www.viviennewestwood.co.uk/w/worlds-end
was insepearble from The Sex Pistols and the nexus of the early punk movement.


So to say that the Pistols weren't the innovators of the punk style is absurd. McClaren, Westwood the Pistols and the Bromley contingent were THE innovators of it. US punk style is NOT the same thing at all.

Virtually no Art movement of the twentieth century was popular in it's time. By contrast the biggest selling artist of the twentieth century has not made it into any history books.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Uh.... only if the history book is talking about the impact of Punk in the UK.

Fact is, UK punk wasn't that big a deal, still isn't. The Sex Pistols had a very limited impact on the music scene as a whole and an even smaller impact on global culture. Punk is a not a widespread movement.

China:


Russia:


Pussy Riot?

Siberia:



Africa:



Japan:


Thailand:


Inuit:


Want me to go on? These are all NOW. Nearly 40 years after the initial explosion and it permetates many cultures as both a vehicle of self expression and a tool of protest; and also fashion at a CUTTING EDGE level not at a consumer masses level.

This is without going into the many people like film makers musicians and artists in mainstream contemporary western culture who always cite punk as a massive influence and still use both classic and new punk in movie soundtracks:

Warning extreme violence and bad language:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmEaA3nu390

And in fashion if you didn't notice I am not seeing any nehru jackets and flares and beads.
I am seeing puink every where:


http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/cara-dele … 03592.html

http://www.vogue.co.uk/fashion/autumn-w … a-watanabe

You know why? because it is still cutting edge and hippies are fossils.