Posted on 02/07/2014 10:54:23 AM PST by US Navy Vet
It was 50 years ago today that The Beatles landed in America for the first time. Could any other group ever hope to top the talents of these beloved moptops? Well ...Yeah, yeah, yeah! Check out 11 bands that I think took the Fab Four’s pop revolution and made it even better, way beyond compare
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Arrangements wise and song writing Brian was a genius. But Carl and Dennis both were great musicans as well. Karl had Brian's voice range and then more to add. He also was a fantastic guitar player. Jardine was highly underrated. Mike Love later on after the court fights with Brian needed to let the past be the past and play the music.
There's no doubt The Beach Boys had The Beatles looking over their shoulders.
The idea that any band without a square neck dobro player as the frontman
Is fairly absurd.
OK, maybe a banjo would suffice.
I almost took the list seriously until I saw Bruce Springsteen.
THANK YOU. Thought the exact same thing — his music ALL sounds alike to me, not a fan, LOL. Same for the Eagles, Same for Bob Dylan. Don’t get the appeal.
DH and I have argued endlessly over Stringbean, DH thinks he’s God.
Clapton is God.
I listen to a classic rock station in the mornings where there is a lot of trivia. background and other info given about the bands and artists. When CCR was inducted into the hall of fame, Fogerty was feuding with the other band members and wouldn't let them on the stage so he played the classic CCR songs with Springsteen and Clapton -- afterwards, Springsteen said "Fogerty has more talent than any 10 people in this entire room!" So true, massive, underrated talent, AFAIC.
so you admit I’m right then claim it proves nothing??? how very left wing of you....
bottom line? you’re speculating what MAY happen 200 years from now- i’m talking about what’s happening today, almost 34 years after Zeppelin broke up- and you’re admitting i’m likely correct....
stale??? compare Twist & Shout to Communication Breakdown or Hey Jude to Kashmir and see which stands the test of time...
I think Fogerty is a great talent. CCR was the No 1 selling artist when the Beatles split. The rest of the band should have stayed on the ride with him rather than wanting to do non-Fogerty stuff. Fantasy Records blew it too. Topics for another thread...
When I heard “Freebird” Southern rock became king in my little world. In this little world of mine, Southern rock is the best rock, Lynyrd Skynyrd is the best Southern rock.
A lot of guitar players are better than Hendrix.....but without Hendrix, there wouldn’t be those guys.
Same goes for the Beatles, they created something that wasn’t there before.
Even Jeff Lynne admitted that ELO basically picked up where the Beatles left off.
No better live band at their peak.........Check out 1970 Isle of Wight. Pure awesomeness, a band at the top of their game.
Ick!
The Who had some amazing songs that never made it onto their albums....I heard this for the first time a few years ago and was stunned it wasn't a huge song for them. I think it was one of those songs Pete ditched, when he decided to devote his energy to "Tommy". And now I regard "Sell Out" as my favorite Who album.
Agree, and love Lynyrd Skynyrd, but Allman Bros. is still my favorite Southern Rock. ZZ Top is great too.
Finally, don't invest in the publishing rights to popular songs, the Beatles, the Brill Building or Johnny Cash. The value of such catalogs diminishes every year as fans die out. No, the Beatles are not forever, neither was grandfather's Rudy Vallee, but Beethoven is!
re: “It’s good to know who the influencers were. Fan club members don’t know and don’t care. That Paul is cute, and George is amazing is enough for them. Record sales numbers themselves tell about influencing listeners, and not musicians. Were the Who influenced by the Beatles? I doubt it! The Mamas and the Papas? No way! The Buggs? Certainly! History of popular music will be written by critics and musicologists, and not by fans!”
I WAS responding to the thread as a musicologist. My bachelor’s and master’s degrees were both in music history and literature, plus a master’s in church music. I also responded as a musician and a fan of rock n roll in all it’s varities.
Am I a Beatle fan - yes. I am also a Glen Miller fan, Bing Crosby fan, Frank Sinatra fan, a Who fan, a Jimi Hendrix fan, Cream, Eric Clapton, Led Zeppelin, James Taylor, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Pachelbel, Maurice Durufle, Ravel, and hundreds of others.
In actuality, as opposed to your presumption, the Beatles did influence the Who and the Mamas and the Papas?? - (the M and P even mention the Beatles in one of their songs). The Beatles influenced a lot of rock musicians of that time period. I’m sure there were some they didn’t - but you can’t deny that they turned the pop music world (of that time period) up on its ear.
That doesn’t mean they were the best or the greatest - I NEVER said that. But it is undeniable that they had a huge impact on rock music and the music industry. So did Elvis, so did Sinatra, so did Bing Crosby, so did Wilson Picket, and hundreds of others to varying degrees - but possibly not on the world-wide scale that the Beatle’s did.
There is no denying that their early sound was just like a thousand other rock n roll bands of the 50’s and early 60’s. Their impact was through their continual musical innovations with each new album. They turned that simple rock n roll sound into something far more sophisticated compositionally, stylistically, and instrumentally. Of course they weren’t the only ones to do that, but their creativity did inspire other musicians to innovate as well.
Pete Townshend discusses the impact the Beatles had in “setting a new pattern” (listen to him yourself on the 1967 interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whx88hxOROk
You don’t have to like a particular band or artist to appreciate their impact. Will the Beatle’s music still be listened to 187 years from now (as Beethoven’s is)? Who knows? If the Beatles hadn’t happened would rock music have continued - of course!! Would it be any different than it is now had they never existed? Yes, I think so, but only within the genre of rock and pop music - not the whole of music history which you seem to think I’m saying (like Bach or Beethoven).
Oh sorry, I thought you were a fan, because you spoke and speak like a fan, and not to my ear like a musical scholar. But that’s fine, except what do you know of the “the world-wide scale that the Beatle’s did”? (and why “Beatle’s”, when they were the Beatles?!) The world is a big place and in many places the Beatles have thankfully had little or no influence.
I’m speaking as a critic, and to me the Mamas and the Papas, or the Who don’t show to have been any more influenced by the Beatles than Muddy Waters by the Rolling Stones, no matter what they say. Music speaks better than musicians. Sure, Sgt Pepper as a concept album probably influenced Pete Townsend to write his rock operas, but in another example, the Kinks came out from another British tradition, and the Loving Spoonful from another American tradition, and everybody influenced everybody else, sure. More than musical influence, I think that the commercial success of the Beatles influenced the music industry, sometimes in very negative ways. And so, the recording careers of other performers may owe to the commercial success of the Beatles but not to the music of the Beatles, stylistically speaking.
Are you aware of what was happening in pop music in England of 1962? There was a lot of noise then, and the Beatles themselves were one of many groups and vocalists that could have come out on top at the time. It was a lively scene (unlike the scene of the time in the States.) Some got lucky, some didn’t. The Undertakers from Liverpool had Jackie Lomax and could have, should have gotten lucky on the strength of his talent, but didn’t. The Pretty Things?
I’m not contradicting everything you are saying, I’m only trying to place it in historical perspective, meaning the history of popular music which lives and dies with its listeners, and that is my main point, even if you and I can still dig Glenn Miller. Another generation and Glenn Miller too will be forgotten.
I don’t know why every generation wants its trashy (let’s be honest) popular culture to outlast it! We oughta be embarrassed by our immature, youthful loves and tastes. If the Beatles are going to be listened to forever, as I read on these pages, then why not Chubby Checker? Everybody loves Chubby Checker. Anyway, that’s enough.
The Beatles were great up until about 1966. They were even better before they became famous. Most people don't realize that they were tearing it up in German strip clubs and English dive bars for years before Brian Epstein discovered them, dressed them up in suits, and had them going "yeah-yeah-yeah" every other song. They would play up to 300 nights a year which is why they were already battle-hardened veterans when they made it big. That's why when they came to America in 1964, the media were rocked back on their heels. They expected humble Elvis Presley types going "yes sir" at their press conferences but the Beatles were not intimidated at all - they had been around the block a few times and they quickly put the condescending press in their places and just shredded them to pieces. That's why America instantly fell in love with them.
They had talent too. The albums "Revolver" and "Rubber Soul" quickly moved pop music into new territory. They were on their way to being the greatest pop/rock band of all time.
However, once they they started getting into drugs and that Sgt Pepper nonsense, they were basically done as a band. Most of what they did post 1966 just doesn't stand the test of time. Songs like "Yellow Submarine", "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" and "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" just sound silly today. Their solo stuff after the break-up? Not so good. Except George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" - now that was good.
I can name a bunch of bands that had better overall careers (musically) than The Beatles but I'll just name one here - The Police. They only put out 5 proper albums from 1978 to 1983 but they were all classic and most of their music still sound as good today as it did back then.
Very good post, man. We don’t always agree, but we do agree about Rubber Soul, Revolver and then STOP! (Though, admittedly, that wasn’t known at the time.)
Actually Pete says it was Jimi Hendrix aping his guitar smash act that made him shift focus to lyrics.
As for The Velvet Underground. I can’t say that they were better than the Beatles, but I heard/read someone say about them, “they didn’t sell many records, but everybody who bought one started his own band” (paraphrasing). Influential might be the better word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.