As my original post has been swept up in recent comments I thought I'd respond:
Firstly, the suggestion that EMI throwing money at the Beatles was responsible for their success. As anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Beatles knows, Brian Epstein was rejected by every major London record label. In desperation, and as a last chance, he turned to an EMI subsidiary called Parlophone who were known solely, if at all, for producing comedy albums. The producer of those said comedy albums was, by happy accident, one Mr George Martin - the rest is history. Similarly, as others have pointed out, Capitol was not interested hence the releases on VJ and Swan before their hand was forced by 'I Want To Hold Your Hand'. I'm not sure how that constitutes 'buying' success.
One of the posts politely accuses me of ignoring the point that black musicians were doing it first. Again, anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of popular music knows this to be correct. The hardline argument tends to say that 'white' music is stolen from 'black' music. I don't want to get into that here but it is of course true to say that 'white' music is massively indebted to 'black' music. In all their early interviews, the Beatles acknowledged that debt; they refused to play to segregated audiences. The Stones were allowed to choose a guest on 'Shindig' (I think); they chose Howlin' Wolf (imagine the shock of that on mainstream US TV at the time); here in the UK Dusty Springfield used her influence to promote a Motown TV special at a time when Motown was barely established here. It was the first time that a programme consisting of so many black artists had been shown on UK TV. Now only a fool would say that makes amends for hundreds of years of slavery/imperialist oppression (UK) or slavery/racial segregation (US) but it's a step, an important step, a step in the right direction and a journey of 1000 miles etc. etc.
The Beatles picked up guitars because of Elvis. Thousands of US garage bands picked up guitars because of the Beatles/Stones/British Invasion and those artists that had already picked up their guitars upped their game e.g. Beach Boys, Dylan, McGuinn etc. The Beatles didn't block anybodies career, they were, like all great artists, about possibility and hope and about the excitement that lies behind all great art. Don't be dismissive of teenage girls screaming because they were helping to tilt the word on its axis - John Lee Hooker got it right - 'the men don't know but the little girls understand'.
I was accused of hyperbole by saying the Beatles changed everything. I stand by that statement. In fact, I will go further and say that their artistic achievement is on a par with Shakespeare or Dickens or Picasso or Rembrandt or Mozart. There I've said it. Great art does change everything and does make the world a better place.
As an Englishman I am immensely proud that this small island was responsible for The Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks, The Who, The Yardbirds etc (not so proud of Herman's Hermits however) The downside of that is I get a bit defensive when people attack 'our' music. I am also a firm believer that people are entitled to their own opinion. However, I draw the line when words like gutless, mediocre, and Backstreet Boys of their day are used in conjuction with the Fab Four or, even worse, when they're patronisingly dismissed as being an insignificant pop combo who created, by some fluke, the odd hummable ditty. That I'm afraid can only be answered by meeting said proponents of such nonsense on the field of honour at dawn with the weapon of your choice - swords, pistols, or Phil Collins CDs used like Oddjob in 'Goldfinger'.
But you know this is what I love about this site - the breadth of opinion and the passion shown. You even get shout outs for Haydn and Bach on here. Now if someone can start a Beethoven v Shadows of Knight thread we'll really see some sparks fly.
Stay cool everybody.
