On an unrelated (?) note, one of my all time favorite quotes is actually from the TV show 'Frasier', "Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity." I'm sorry, that was uncalled for.

Sorry Don, I get a bit heated sometimes. It's been established that the English record companies were throwing around a LOT of money. Record company money makes stars. How else can you explain Fergie and Ga-Ga?

Don said:

I look at this whole thread and go "huh?"  The Beatles were a band. They were four guys who made music. Lots of people dug their music. Their success opened possibilities in the minds of other budding (and some not so budding) musicians. That's it. Nothing more.

I find this whole "money" thing bogus. The studios tried to push lots of bands -- without success. Even the Beatles; film A Hard Day's Night goofs on this concept with the "Susan" sequence.

Frankly, to me, this sounds like the same nonsense as the "The 1% are to blame for my failure."  BS!  Make the best music you can. See if anyone wants to hear it. Stand on the street with a tin cup. Get an 8 track and distribute your music. Put on a Viking suit like Moondog did and sell it in the street.

Not raw enough for you?  OK. Neither is Cole Porter or the Gershwin brothers. Neither, perhaps, is Miles Davis.  There are a million styles of music. If it talks to your soul it is for you, if not its not. Why the need to bicker and compare. Why the need for biblical "so and so begot so and so."

Sorry guys. As the gum popper at the mall says "Been there. Done that."

I look at this whole thread and go "huh?"  The Beatles were a band. They were four guys who made music. Lots of people dug their music. Their success opened possibilities in the minds of other budding (and some not so budding) musicians. That's it. Nothing more.

I find this whole "money" thing bogus. The studios tried to push lots of bands -- without success. Even the Beatles' film A Hard Day's Night goofs on this concept with the "Susan" sequence.

Frankly, to me, this sounds like the same nonsense as the "The 1% are to blame for my failure."  BS!  Make the best music you can. See if anyone wants to hear it. Stand on the street with a tin cup. Get an 8 track and distribute your music. Put on a Viking suit like Moondog did and sell it in the street.

Not raw enough for you?  OK. Neither, I suppose, is Cole Porter or the Gershwin brothers. Neither, perhaps, is Miles Davis.  There are a million styles of music. If it talks to your soul it is for you, if not its not. Why the need to bicker and compare. Why the need for the quasi-biblical "so and so begot so and so."

Sorry guys. As the gum popper at the mall says "Been there. Done that."

And if The Beatles denied the influences of other (mostly American bands) they'd have been liars. But, they didn't "Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been Elvis, there would not have been the Beatles." -John Lennon. McCartney lists The Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" as one of his biggest influences. "Without Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper wouldn't have happened ... Pepper was an attempt to equal Pet Sounds" -Paul McCartney. Johnny Thunders is one of my biggest influences. I may have played slightly different without him, but I would have played... and it would have been dirty rock 'n' rocll. So, everything I've said (other than the Backstreet Boys exaggeration) still remains true. The 'scene' would have happened - with or without The Beatles.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Every town a rock and roll scene before the Beatles came along but almost everybody from these scenes is probably gonna admit that their influence helped evolve them.  And all the British bands had money behind them.  And if anybody was the Backstreet Boys, it was Herman's Hermits, not the Beatles.  EMI wanted the Beatles to sing songs that EMI provided for them and they refused.  Instead, they simply took this as a sign to write better tunes.  Sure, Brian Epstein got them to dress in suits but they were doing that before EMI got involved.  And the haircuts came before Brian Epstein got involved.  So I really don't see how manufactured you think they are.  Capitol Records originally didn't even want the Beatles to begin with and when they did get them, The Beatles already had their image, Capitol simply put money behind promoting a record that couldn't be denied.

RJFait said:

Are you serious? The point I was making was that The Beatles did not cause any Garage or Psych Scene and were only very briefly even a part of any. They were a POP band with EMI money backing them. They were the Backstreet Boys of their time.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

First off, the Wailers were turning into a pop band who did weddings by 1963 so there best years (up to that point) were behind them, so you can thank the Beatles, then the Sonics for giving them a kick in the butt.  The Leaves?  They used the Byrds as a blue print which of course leads us back to the Beatles.  The Thirteenth Floor Elevators would have never gotten started if their individual members hadn't been turned on by Stones and Kinks records (they all would have been in seperate bands still doing country, older blues and Buddy Holly tunes), which probably wouldn't have made it here if Beatles records hadn't come first.  And of course, Sky Saxon wanted to be bigger than the Stones and again, same as Thirteenth Floor Elevators, no Stones records in the States would have been hits if the Beatles hadn't opened the doors first.  DJs and Record labels didn't care about British records until the fans wanted them.  Fans didn't want them until "I Want to Hold Your Hand" made a big impact.  Even the Beach Boys probably would have been washed up if that record hadn't come along.  C'mon!  Even if the Beatles are gutless, bands that followed wouldn't have had anything to prove if that factor wasn't there. 

RJFait said:

The Fabulous Wailers, The Leaves, The 13th Floor Elevators and The Seeds would have been some heavy shit with or without the Beatles. Would the Beatles have been nearly as heavy without them? I find that very doubtful. The Beatles were a pop band covering American R&B when these bands were creating a genre. Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

matthew rosedon said:

Don't mean to upset anyone but I do wonder about the mental state of anyone who claims not to like the Beatles.  Apart from everything else they contributed to making the world a better place, without them I doubt very much whether this site would exist.  THEY CHANGED EVERYTHING.

Every town had a rock and roll scene before the Beatles came along but almost everybody from these scenes is probably gonna admit that their influence helped evolve them.  And all the British bands had money behind them.  And if anybody was the Backstreet Boys, it was Herman's Hermits, not the Beatles.  EMI wanted the Beatles to sing songs that EMI provided for them and they refused.  Instead, they simply took this as a sign to write better tunes.  Sure, Brian Epstein got them to dress in suits but they were doing that before EMI got involved.  And the haircuts came before Brian Epstein got involved.  So I really don't see how manufactured you think they are.  Capitol Records originally didn't even want the Beatles to begin with and when they did get them, The Beatles already had their image, Capitol simply put money behind promoting a record that couldn't be denied.

RJFait said:

Are you serious? The point I was making was that The Beatles did not cause any Garage or Psych Scene and were only very briefly even a part of any. They were a POP band with EMI money backing them. They were the Backstreet Boys of their time.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

First off, the Wailers were turning into a pop band who did weddings by 1963 so there best years (up to that point) were behind them, so you can thank the Beatles, then the Sonics for giving them a kick in the butt.  The Leaves?  They used the Byrds as a blue print which of course leads us back to the Beatles.  The Thirteenth Floor Elevators would have never gotten started if their individual members hadn't been turned on by Stones and Kinks records (they all would have been in seperate bands still doing country, older blues and Buddy Holly tunes), which probably wouldn't have made it here if Beatles records hadn't come first.  And of course, Sky Saxon wanted to be bigger than the Stones and again, same as Thirteenth Floor Elevators, no Stones records in the States would have been hits if the Beatles hadn't opened the doors first.  DJs and Record labels didn't care about British records until the fans wanted them.  Fans didn't want them until "I Want to Hold Your Hand" made a big impact.  Even the Beach Boys probably would have been washed up if that record hadn't come along.  C'mon!  Even if the Beatles are gutless, bands that followed wouldn't have had anything to prove if that factor wasn't there. 

RJFait said:

The Fabulous Wailers, The Leaves, The 13th Floor Elevators and The Seeds would have been some heavy shit with or without the Beatles. Would the Beatles have been nearly as heavy without them? I find that very doubtful. The Beatles were a pop band covering American R&B when these bands were creating a genre. Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

matthew rosedon said:

Don't mean to upset anyone but I do wonder about the mental state of anyone who claims not to like the Beatles.  Apart from everything else they contributed to making the world a better place, without them I doubt very much whether this site would exist.  THEY CHANGED EVERYTHING.

Um, Mr Rosedon, while I agree that you'd be a fool to dismiss the Beatles entire back catalogue, but you do realise that there were a lot of black folk doing what the Beatles were doing, but before them?

They changed everything because they had EMI's money and connections. And as for making the world a better place? No, I think that's hyperbole.

Maybe I get out of line sometimes, but if you take what I say out of context, I make the context real clear. The fact remains, The Wailers didn't need The Beatles to write Dirty Robber. The Sonics' Strychnine borrowed nothing from Love Me Do. Garage and psych would have existed with or without The Beatles. And most other garage AND psych bands did it harder and dirtier than The Beatles ever did, before and after I Wanna Hold Your Hand. And I should have put this somewhere else but I don't remember where; The first Blue Cheer album came out before Helter Skelter and is more heavy metal than anything else would be until Black Sabbath. Maybe even after. OK, my dander is no longer up.

Are you serious? The point I was making was that The Beatles did not cause any Garage or Psych Scene and were only very briefly even a part of any. They were a POP band with EMI money backing them. They were the Backstreet Boys of their time.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

First off, the Wailers were turning into a pop band who did weddings by 1963 so there best years (up to that point) were behind them, so you can thank the Beatles, then the Sonics for giving them a kick in the butt.  The Leaves?  They used the Byrds as a blue print which of course leads us back to the Beatles.  The Thirteenth Floor Elevators would have never gotten started if their individual members hadn't been turned on by Stones and Kinks records (they all would have been in seperate bands still doing country, older blues and Buddy Holly tunes), which probably wouldn't have made it here if Beatles records hadn't come first.  And of course, Sky Saxon wanted to be bigger than the Stones and again, same as Thirteenth Floor Elevators, no Stones records in the States would have been hits if the Beatles hadn't opened the doors first.  DJs and Record labels didn't care about British records until the fans wanted them.  Fans didn't want them until "I Want to Hold Your Hand" made a big impact.  Even the Beach Boys probably would have been washed up if that record hadn't come along.  C'mon!  Even if the Beatles are gutless, bands that followed wouldn't have had anything to prove if that factor wasn't there. 

RJFait said:

The Fabulous Wailers, The Leaves, The 13th Floor Elevators and The Seeds would have been some heavy shit with or without the Beatles. Would the Beatles have been nearly as heavy without them? I find that very doubtful. The Beatles were a pop band covering American R&B when these bands were creating a genre. Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

matthew rosedon said:

Don't mean to upset anyone but I do wonder about the mental state of anyone who claims not to like the Beatles.  Apart from everything else they contributed to making the world a better place, without them I doubt very much whether this site would exist.  THEY CHANGED EVERYTHING.

Apple Corp. Don't let hippies look after the money. I take it everyone has seen All You Need Is Cash?

And Buddy was God, in that sense. But everybody knows Willie Dixon is really God.

First off, the Wailers were turning into a pop band who did weddings by 1963 so there best years (up to that point) were behind them, so you can thank the Beatles, then the Sonics for giving them a kick in the butt.  The Leaves?  They used the Byrds as a blue print which of course leads us back to the Beatles.  The Thirteenth Floor Elevators would have never gotten started if their individual members hadn't been turned on by Stones and Kinks records (they all would have been in seperate bands still doing country, older blues and Buddy Holly tunes), which probably wouldn't have made it here if Beatles records hadn't come first.  And of course, Sky Saxon wanted to be bigger than the Stones and again, same as Thirteenth Floor Elevators, no Stones records in the States would have been hits if the Beatles hadn't opened the doors first.  DJs and Record labels didn't care about British records until the fans wanted them.  Fans didn't want them until "I Want to Hold Your Hand" made a big impact.  Even the Beach Boys probably would have been washed up if that record hadn't come along.  C'mon!  Even if the Beatles are gutless, bands that followed wouldn't have had anything to prove if that factor wasn't there. 

RJFait said:

The Fabulous Wailers, The Leaves, The 13th Floor Elevators and The Seeds would have been some heavy shit with or without the Beatles. Would the Beatles have been nearly as heavy without them? I find that very doubtful. The Beatles were a pop band covering American R&B when these bands were creating a genre. Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

matthew rosedon said:

Don't mean to upset anyone but I do wonder about the mental state of anyone who claims not to like the Beatles.  Apart from everything else they contributed to making the world a better place, without them I doubt very much whether this site would exist.  THEY CHANGED EVERYTHING.

This thread reminds me of two earlier -- OK, much earlier ones -- when, first, the lovers of the simple (Call it "classical") sounds and melodies rejected the overly ornate, show-offy, sounds of their predecessors only to have their own music quickly rejected by a younger generation as being soulless and overly concerned with form.

I am of course discussing Haydn and his clan's rejection of the baroque and then the romantics rejection of Haydn and those that followed him.

;-)

-don

The Fabulous Wailers, The Leaves, The 13th Floor Elevators and The Seeds would have been some heavy shit with or without the Beatles. Would the Beatles have been nearly as heavy without them? I find that very doubtful. The Beatles were a pop band covering American R&B when these bands were creating a genre. Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

matthew rosedon said:

Don't mean to upset anyone but I do wonder about the mental state of anyone who claims not to like the Beatles.  Apart from everything else they contributed to making the world a better place, without them I doubt very much whether this site would exist.  THEY CHANGED EVERYTHING.

I don't hate the Beatles, I just think the bulk of their work was gutless pop. At some point in the middle they started getting better drugs or something and put out a few good records. Then, they went right back to gutless pop.

there is no real reason to dislike the fabs (apart from you genuinely don't like the music). Yes, they were successful and yes, they were four annoying twats from Liverpool, but together they wrote/played some fantastic tunes, and they were innovators - Sgt Pepper arguably changed the 'pop' landscape and the white album was just plain amazin'!

the amazing aspect of The Beatles is that the older I get, the more I appreciate their professionalism.  They and George Martin, painted a soundscape on each and every song.  The lyrics, music and swagger all fit nicely into each little song package.  I went through that I am too cool for The Beatles phase for a long time, but then I started really listening.  Wow, the craftsmanship, the pure pop as art ethos is here in those grooves.  It is as though, each song is a separate, yet integral part of a whole piece.  Each song adding another  layer to the painting.  I fought this for a long time, but finally I had the epiphany of their artistry. Now, I am continually discovering new aspects of their songs.  I am at peace with this epiphany too.  I guess with age comes clarity, or the realization that The Beatles have always been that good.    

I think with the Beatles and also Elvis, well you spend your entire life hearing about how they are God and the most amazing people ever, genius, so talented, etc... and then you hear them and how can anybody live up to that? 

Nobody ever can really. 

Anyway it isn't that important that everyone loves the Beatles, but you should least respect the Beatles and how important they are in rnr history. 

I don't think there's any real good reason to dislike the Beatles as a whole because they DO have a wide range and some are going to like the long hair hippies more than the mop tops.  To hate everything they ever did I think is kind of ridiculous.  Yes, they are tame in comparison to almost everything we've come to enjoy but would we have anything to enjoy if it wasn't for them.  I think a lot of the fifties acts would have become forgotten relics (even Elvis) if a band like the Beatles hadn't come along to remind us of what came before.  I think a lot of bands like the Stones and the Kinks would have had a tougher time in the States if the Beatles hadn't been around having their first round of hit singles paving the way.  Different in style, but a big reason a lot of the following groups even got a listen was that they were British and kids were going to listen to anything British thanks to the Beatles.  Otherwise, they probably would have got lost in the shuffle just like British acts before the Beatles (like Cliff Richard or somebody of that ilk).

You have what's like your own little Norwegian Wood story going on here.  Sorry about the sad twist at the end but cool that she took the time to turn you onto something.

G. Wood said:

When I was a snotty little kid in '63 or '64, my snotty little friends and I used to make fun of this new big teenage fad, The Beatles. "John Lemmon, what a sourpuss!" One day my friend's older sister, maybe she was 15 or so, asked me if I'd actually ever heard The Beatles. She took me up to her room and put Meet The Beatles on the player. Up until then, I hadn't payed much attention to music, outside of the the stuff my parents sometimes listened to, like Marty Robbins, Roger Miller, Moon River, Sink The Bismark, Grand Canyon Suite, and other odds & ends, plus vague memories of earlier doo wop and teeny pop.

I don't know if it was the music alone, or a sophisticated 'older woman' paying attention to me. What I know is that day changed my life. Meet The Beatles was the most exciting thing I ever heard. I got a transistor radio. I started combing my hair different. I lost all interest in baseball cards and comic books. Soon, I got a guitar. 

Sadly, my friend's sister died the next year, in a diving accident. The family moved away. But I continued to rock, to this very day.

The first heavy metal song!

I don't think they would have ever said that they invented any sound or style, but their sheer popularity as a band means that for many people they were the door being opened to all that went before them and came after. Joey Ramone always cited The Beatles as one of his biggest influences.

No music is not influenced by what came before it, whether as homage or rejection.

Axel Björnsson said:

they wrote helter skelter. its a sin to dislike.

HELTER SKELTER

Byrds are still better tho.

Not me, I think it's a great album. 

John Battles said:

"A Bigger Bang" is a motherfucker , tho' I guess most people disagree.

When I was a snotty little kid in '63 or '64, my snotty little friends and I used to make fun of this new big teenage fad, The Beatles. "John Lemmon, what a sourpuss!" One day my friend's older sister, maybe she was 15 or so, asked me if I'd actually ever heard The Beatles. She took me up to her room and put Meet The Beatles on the player. Up until then, I hadn't payed much attention to music, outside of the the stuff my parents sometimes listened to, like Marty Robbins, Roger Miller, Moon River, Sink The Bismark, Grand Canyon Suite, and other odds & ends, plus vague memories of earlier doo wop and teeny pop.

I don't know if it was the music alone, or a sophisticated 'older woman' paying attention to me. What I know is that day changed my life. Meet The Beatles was the most exciting thing I ever heard. I got a transistor radio. I started combing my hair different. I lost all interest in baseball cards and comic books. Soon, I got a guitar. 

Sadly, my friend's sister died the next year, in a diving accident. The family moved away. But I continued to rock, to this very day.

Old School Hero said:

I agree with you. My only problem with the Beatles is how they rob attention from all the other great mainstream acts of the time. Young people looking into 60's music will unfortunately stop with The Beatles and forget about looking into The Animals or The Yardbirds for example.

Very True, unfortunately even the non mainstream acts! 60s Alternative/Garage Rock has had NO comprehensive representation or RECOGNITION for that matter. It's appallingly pathetic! The Rockn' Roll Hall of fame in Cleavland is big DISGRACE for not doing something about this injustice, just like the Grammy's, an infantile and idiotic popularity contest to boost sales of talentless acts!

Damn straight.

Glenn Prangnell said:

The Beatles are up there. Everyone else is down there.

Listen to the clash/london calling. nuf ced.

Great thread.  I came across this link today.  Conan O'Brien gets to check out George Harrison's guitars.  His reaction is hilarious!:  http://www.gretschguitars.com/blog/lifestyle/conan-checks-out-george-harrison-guitars/