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.