blue Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='acidbass' timestamp='1438299791' post='2833465'] Yeah, it's just OAP conjecture for me. I love the Beatles. The Beatles have influenced my approach to music, almost exclusively. How does that make me different to anyone in the 60s, apart from having tons of other influences to accredit? [/quote] I would bet the other influences were influenced in some way by The Beatles. I contend anyone standing vertical playing an electric guitar was influenced by the Beatles whether they know it or not. Blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='acidbass' timestamp='1438297506' post='2833452'] In my eyes, the ability to take all the influences from the past 50 years until now, reference them and create something new to move music forward, takes a lot more skill and tact than doing the same in the 60's. [/quote] You have to be kidding, right, a joke right? Blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='Cosmo Valdemar' timestamp='1438295616' post='2833440'] I don't understand where this whole 'young people don't get the Beatles' idea comes from. [/quote] From young people saying; " I don't get The Beatles" Blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='obbm' timestamp='1438294417' post='2833432'] Unlike many of the preceeding performers, The Beatles were one of the first to write and record their own material. That in itself was a huge change. [/quote] Exactly, we all saw Lennon & McCartney credited on all those Capital 45s. Elvis had a hell of a time finding decent hit material. Blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1438293379' post='2833415'] It's easy to miss what was really important about The Beatles, because nowdays we live in a post-Beatles era. By that I mean that other musicians have learned from The Beatles, and there is plenty of music that equals the quality and sophistication of what they did. The important thing is that The Beatles did it without a precedent to learn from. It's similar to how some artists can produce paintings in the style of the great masters. It doesn't make them more talented than the great masters, as the technique may be there. What's missing is the innovation. Everyone seems to get that for art and science. For some reason people forget that for music, and wonder what all the fuss was about. [/quote] Agreed, I mean look at George, who was like 17 years old. Outside of a few country guitarists he didn't have a lot to draw from, yet he started the whole concept of "lead guitar". Incredible. I didn't know what feedback was until I heard "I Feel Fine" Blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='blue' timestamp='1438306900' post='2833482'] Agreed, I mean look at George, who was like 17 years old. Outside of a few country guitarists he didn't have a lot to draw from, yet he started the whole concept of "lead guitar". Incredible. I didn't know what feedback was until I heard "I Feel Fine" Blue [/quote] The feedback was Lennon, wasn't it? I've always had mixed opinions about George. He wrote some great tunes, but a lot of guitar parts where he was left to his own devices are sloppy and half-baked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubsonicSimpleton Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='blue' timestamp='1438306900' post='2833482'] Agreed, I mean look at George, who was like 17 years old. Outside of a few country guitarists he didn't have a lot to draw from, [b]yet he started the whole concept of "lead guitar"[/b]. Incredible. I didn't know what feedback was until I heard "I Feel Fine" Blue [/quote] And Chuck Berry had absolutely no influence then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delberthot Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I can draw a similar comparison to music today as movies today. There have been some great movies made but it seems that the further into the future we get the more one film is like another and the more that we get remakes. For me, this is the same as music. It's more or less all been done before so it's hard to come up with something new. Occasionally someone will break through but it's becoming harder as if you're really into music you've heard it all before. I disagree that if you weren't there then you missed it as I have fond memories of listening to a great number of bands for the first time and playing the songs over and over again. Just being overwhelmed by the tracks and how they did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodinblack Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='blue' timestamp='1438306172' post='2833477'] Hmmm, Not anybody I know. [/quote] You must have a very select group of associates! Most people I know who are mid 60s, which is quite a few, aren't really bothered either way about music, including the beatles. I would say the majority of musicians I know a that age do like the beatles, although most of those are shadows fans that also like the beatles, and the other mersey beat groups, but I know a few that really hate them. I only know a couple of people who really would put the beatles down as their favourite group, both gigging musicians, one is in his 50s, one is not yet 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leschirons Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='SubsonicSimpleton' timestamp='1438323813' post='2833501'] And Chuck Berry had absolutely no influence then? [/quote] Of course he did. It was the likes of him and Little Richard that influenced the Beatles before they apparently influenced the rest of the world. Re the case here that younger generations seem to confuse and even irritate some posters by "not getting" the Beatles. I've always liked the Beatles but it's not for us oldies to tell people what was, or was not good music, only what we liked and about the changes we saw at that time. I don't "get" Justin Beiber but obviously millions do. There's no law stating that they have to like the Beatles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoying Twit Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='leschirons' timestamp='1438328126' post='2833522'] Of course he did. It was the likes of him and Little Richard that influenced the Beatles before they apparently influenced the rest of the world. Re the case here that younger generations seem to confuse and even irritate some posters by "not getting" the Beatles. I've always liked the Beatles but it's not for us oldies to tell people what was, or was not good music, only what we liked and about the changes we saw at that time. I don't "get" Justin Beiber but obviously millions do. There's no law stating that they have to like the Beatles [/quote] I don't think that people are expecting young people to like The Beatles, it's more a matter of understanding why The Beatles were important. The two are very different things. Nobody can deny that The Beatles were hugely influential, and permanently changed the face of popular music. Also, as for the discussion as to how it's difficult to do something 'new' these days. That indicates that music has become a bit stagnant. And if music is stagnant, then that creates the conditions for a revolution. Preferably something that us old crusty people will not even recognise as music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leschirons Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='blue' timestamp='1438306362' post='2833478'] I contend anyone standing vertical playing an electric guitar was influenced by the Beatles whether they know it or not. Blue [/quote] [quote name='blue' timestamp='1438306900' post='2833482'] Agreed, I mean look at George, who was like 17 years old. Outside of a few country guitarists he didn't have a lot to draw from, yet he started the whole concept of "lead guitar". Incredible. Blue [/quote] Most of the guitarists I came across of my sort of age were influenced by Chuck Berry and Hank Marvin. The Shadows were releasing guitar led instrumentals in 1960 and Chuck Berry was a guitar hero long before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leschirons Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1438329392' post='2833532'] I don't think that people are expecting young people to like The Beatles, it's more a matter of understanding why The Beatles were important. The two are very different things. Nobody can deny that The Beatles were hugely influential, and permanently changed the face of popular music. [/quote] Of course, you're right. My point was badly put. They were hugely important and did change things a lot. However, in order for that to happen, society has to be in a position to allow it, if that makes sense. It's not just a matter of the artistes, the time has to be right to receive and accept change. Like Punk, there were some brilliantly innovative acts at the time but things had to be ripe for change. My point being, although brilliant in my opinion, it needn't necessarily have been the Beatles that took the USA by storm if the time was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 They were only able to take the U.S. By storm because they had a back catalogue ready to go. They managed to book the Ed Sulivan Show for three shows straightaway, something that relied on the rapid uptake of TV. Even from their day as a cover band at the Cavern club they're a very good example of how to successfully market a band/product. They took what was available to them at the time and very cleverly pulled it all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1438333149' post='2833583'] They were only able to take the U.S. By storm because they had a back catalogue ready to go. They managed to book the Ed Sulivan Show for three shows straightaway, something that relied on the rapid uptake of TV. Even from their day as a cover band at the Cavern club they're a very good example of how to successfully market a band/product. They took what was available to them at the time and very cleverly pulled it all together. [/quote] Nah - there's more to it than that. As I've said before, they were a freak perfect storm. Energy, looks, stage presence, writing skills, instrumental skills, musical knowledge, a thirst to learn more, a thirst to succeed. If the Dave Clark Five had gone over there first with a back catalogue ready to go, do you really think they'd have made the same impact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) They may have. They were only a few weeks behind. Whether they rode on the back offer English pop wave you'll never know. Were they as prolific? Like most things the product had to be right first but as most originals bands find to this day, you need to push the product in the right areas. Perfect storm describes it very well. Especially when you look at all the other bands who were around in the 60s. If the Beatles had been the only band and there had been no other bands, they would have simply disappeared. I think taking the Beatles in isolation and crediting them with the explosion of music in the 60s may be why they're quite often regarded as overrated. Edited July 31, 2015 by TimR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Talking about guitars. . . I think George Harrison just wanted to be Carl Perkins. I see GH as more as a song writer not really up there as a guitarist, although he later developed a very unique style. The Dave Clark 5 and Hermans Hermits were bigger in the US than the Beatles for a brief period. But quality won out in the end. The Beatles would have disappeared if it wasn't for other bands? You're having a laugh! The other bands were bands. The Beatles were a cultural phenomenon, as well as being the best of the bunch by a country mile. Where are the other bands of that era? Who fundamentally changed popular culture, music, song writing and recording? It wasn't the Hollies, Animals, Kinks or Gerry and the Pacemakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevB Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1438333727' post='2833591'] Nah - there's more to it than that. As I've said before, they were a freak perfect storm. Energy, looks, stage presence, writing skills, instrumental skills, musical knowledge, a thirst to learn more, a thirst to succeed. If the Dave Clark Five had gone over there first with a back catalogue ready to go, do you really think they'd have made the same impact? [/quote] This is pretty much how I've always looked at it, a lot of things in their favour all coming to the fore just at the right time. And great guidance from Martin in the studio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 A huge amount of guidance in the studio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) [quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1438344289' post='2833725'] Who fundamentally changed popular culture, music, song writing and recording? It wasn't the Hollies, Animals, Kinks or Gerry and the Pacemakers. [/quote] Indeed and it can easily be proven. Choose any Beatles hit of the early-mid 60's; check the release date. Listen to what other bands were putting out at the same time. It's what the Beatles had been doing six months before that. Then go forward 3-6 months and it's the same. Every other big league band was playing catch up. The Who, The Stones, The Kinks - [i]everyone[/i] - waited to see what the Beatles were going to do next. Their autobiographies frequently prove as much, with passages on the lines of: 'One night I picked up Donovan in my Bentley and we went round to Pete's ([i]Townshend[/i]) house. We were skinning up a big one with Mick when Eric turned up carrying the new Beatles album. We all sat down and listened to it. From intro to run-out groove we were totally blown away and said so, apart from Ray ([i]Davies)[/i] who observed that he could write much better songs but didn't feel like doing so because competition was "beneath him". Ray's brother Dave laughed out loud and Ray hit him'. [i]Tony Goggle - GoggleBox (box set liner notes)[/i] Edited July 31, 2015 by skankdelvar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo Valdemar Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='blue' timestamp='1438306528' post='2833480'] From young people saying; " I don't get The Beatles" Blue [/quote] There's a difference between a young person not 'getting' The Beatles and this huge cultural divide that you seem to insist exists! I have no doubt there are a lot of young people who rabidly dislike the band and are unable to understand what all the fuss is about. Equally there must be some of the older generation who feel exactly the same way. It might be different in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='Cosmo Valdemar' timestamp='1438349473' post='2833802'] There's a difference between a young person not 'getting' The Beatles and this huge cultural divide that you seem to insist exists! I have no doubt there are a lot of young people who rabidly dislike the band and are unable to understand what all the fuss is about. Equally there must be some of the older generation who feel exactly the same way. It might be different in the US. [/quote] Not many. Blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1438323720' post='2833500'] The feedback was Lennon, wasn't it? I've always had mixed opinions about George. He wrote some great tunes, but a lot of guitar parts where he was left to his own devices are sloppy and half-baked. [/quote] Not for that time period. Blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1438293379' post='2833415'] It's easy to miss what was really important about The Beatles, because nowdays we live in a post-Beatles era. By that I mean that other musicians have learned from The Beatles, and there is plenty of music that equals the quality and sophistication of what they did. The important thing is that The Beatles did it without a precedent to learn from.[/quote] I don't see many rock bands today playing completely live and singing 2 & 3 part harmonies. Blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 [quote name='blue' timestamp='1438360011' post='2833951'] Not for that time period. Blue [/quote] I dunno.. there's some fairly 'phoned-in' solos around that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif.9ad672bb8b84505709f76b39c8c256ec.gif)
Recommended Posts