The Beatles

[Hermit]

Are you seriously trying to say that Elvis et al didn't "sweep aside the mind-numbing sludge"?

No. What on earth gave you that idea?

What I did say was: "the Beatles were not the first to ring in the changes, but nobody swept the mind-numbing, torpid sludge aside as effectively as they did." Be a good boy, please, and reply to what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

[Animavore]

Are you seriously trying to say that Elvis et al didn't "sweep aside the mind-numbing sludge"?

No. What on earth gave you that idea?

What I did say was: "the Beatles were not the first to ring in the changes, but nobody swept the mind-numbing, torpid sludge aside as effectively as they did." Be a good boy, please, and reply to what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

I know exactly what you said. I guess I'll have to rephrase it; Are you seriously trying to say Elvis et al didn't "sweep away the mind-numbing, torpid sludge" as effectively as The Beatles did... etc.

[Rum]

Are you seriously trying to say that Elvis et al didn't "sweep aside the mind-numbing sludge"?

No. What on earth gave you that idea?

What I did say was: "the Beatles were not the first to ring in the changes, but nobody swept the mind-numbing, torpid sludge aside as effectively as they did." Be a good boy, please, and reply to what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

I know exactly what you said. I guess I'll have to rephrase it; Are you seriously trying to say Elvis et al didn't "sweep away the mind-numbing, torpid sludge" as effectively as The Beatles did... etc.

No he didn't. After the first few rock n' roll hits he actually sold out and started singing utter bilge. The Beatles changed everything. They wrote their own songs and the were 'artists' in a way that had no previously been possible in popular music. Sure their first couple of albums contained some crap. They didn't write all of the material for starters, but what they did was change the game over a very short period. Not only the game but the rules.

[Animavore]

I'm not convinced. I think you're putting more import on them than they deserve. They were as much influenced by the what was happening around them as they were influential themselves.
It's ok though. I understand. Everyone likes to think that about their musical period. There are punk fans who say the same stuff about The Sex Pistols.
I commend use at least for not using the tired cliché What would you know? You weren't there man.

[The Red Fox]

The Beatles changed pop music? I'm sure that's the case. That said, when have the charts ever been anything but shit? The real gems have always been hard to find. I still don't get why they're so revered for that. They didn't do anything new with music. Their early stuff was rock by numbers and their later stuff was good, but in my opinion was outdone by other bands. For example, this was recorded during the same month as Revolver:





Revolver has some good tracks, but nothing on the same level of experimentation and sheer effrontery as The Velvet Underground. This is why I can't understand the reverence that's heaped on The Beatles. They changed pop music, sure, but they didn't do anything new with music to the same extent other bands did. In my opinion, writing genuinely experimental music at the expense of popularity is far more important to music than how many records you shift.

[Animavore]

Another stark omission I always see in such discussions is the huge influence of black music on twentieth century music. Everything from Elvis to The Beatles wouldn't even exist without it. I find a lot of musical attitudes to be Caucasio-centric. Even the tap dancing craze came from black people then there is jazz, soul, swing, blues (the latter having the largest influence on The Beatles). All of these white boys were just copying the blacks and to this day they still are.

EDIT: Removed tautology.

[charlou]

Another stark omission I always see in such discussions is the huge influence of black music on twentieth century music. Everything from Elvis to The Beatles wouldn't even exist without it. I find a lot of musical attitudes to be Caucasio-centric. Even the tap dancing craze came from black people then there is jazz, soul, swing, blues (the latter having the largest influence on The Beatles).

Good point.

[Twoflower]

The Beatles changed pop music? I'm sure that's the case. That said, when have the charts ever been anything but shit? The real gems have always been hard to find. I still don't get why they're so revered for that. They didn't do anything new with music. Their early stuff was rock by numbers and their later stuff was good, but in my opinion was outdone by other bands. For example, this was recorded during the same month as Revolver:





Revolver has some good tracks, but nothing on the same level of experimentation and sheer effrontery as The Velvet Underground. This is why I can't understand the reverence that's heaped on The Beatles. They changed pop music, sure, but they didn't do anything new with music to the same extent other bands did. In my opinion, writing genuinely experimental music at the expense of popularity is far more important to music than how many records you shift.

I love The Velvet Underground. They never got as much attention as their music deserved.

[The Red Fox]

The Beatles changed pop music? I'm sure that's the case. That said, when have the charts ever been anything but shit? The real gems have always been hard to find. I still don't get why they're so revered for that. They didn't do anything new with music. Their early stuff was rock by numbers and their later stuff was good, but in my opinion was outdone by other bands. For example, this was recorded during the same month as Revolver:





Revolver has some good tracks, but nothing on the same level of experimentation and sheer effrontery as The Velvet Underground. This is why I can't understand the reverence that's heaped on The Beatles. They changed pop music, sure, but they didn't do anything new with music to the same extent other bands did. In my opinion, writing genuinely experimental music at the expense of popularity is far more important to music than how many records you shift.

I love The Velvet Underground. They never got as much attention as their music deserved.

Which is kind of my point. +100 for loving The Velvet Underground.

[tattuchu]

It's difficult for me to say just how important The Beatles were to music. I was born in '63, so I grew up on them and didn't really know anything else. I don't have any frame of reference by which to judge what came before, since I didn't experience it. Most of the stuff I did hear from earlier performers, I hated. Couldn't stand Sinatra. Couldn't stand Elvis. Couldn't stand The Beach Boys. Although I appreciate some of their stuff now, they still seem hopelessly old-fashioned to me, contrived, plastic. The Beatles were honest, direct, genuine. There was nothing else like them. My mother did have a great collection of 45s, all early rock and roll. They'd be worth a fortune if she still had them. I liked a lot of them, Roy Orbison in particular. But none of them spoke to me like The Beatles did. Important to music as a whole? I dunno, I guess. But what I do know is that they were important to me. There was just something magic about the Fabs. I honestly can't imagine my life without them. I can't say that about many bands.

[maiforpeace]

I adore the Beatles. Always have, and always will. Their music has been a part of my life since I can remember music.

They are fabulous, wonderful, there's no better band in the entire universe. KIDDING! I do love them though.

[tattuchu]

"Rain" is far and away my favorite Beatles song

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Nothing in music exists in a vacuum.

The Beatles were initially big fans of rock'n'roll - particularly Little Richard and Elvis, but also Roy Orbison and Buddy Holly - two acts that wrote their own material and gave the young fabs the idea to do likewise. As time went on, they (especially Lennon, who was a musical magpie) absorbed a huge number of influences and incorporated them into their sound - including Dylan (Norwegian Wood was a Dylan pastiche), Zappa (Lennon was one of the first people in the UK to have a copy of Freak Out), The Beach Boys (Pet Sounds was cited by McCartney as one of the best albums ever made) and obviously, Indian classical music (Harrison's contribution to their eclectic mix.)

They also had a producer, in George Martin, with a classical background, who was skilled and inventive enough to add instrumentation that was outside of the usual rock vocabulary.

They didn't change the music world single-handedly. They didn't innovate all that much. They never invented psychedelia. But what they did do, by dint of their enormous popularity, was to popularise niche musical styles and bring to a mass audience an appreciation that 'rock' didn't stop at two guitars and a drum kit. If anyone else was doing it, you could be sure that it would appear on the next Beatles album!

So yes, they were important. They changed things. They combined things. They widened perspectives. If it hadn't been them, it would probably have been someone else - but it might have taken a lot longer.

[The Curious Squid]

I never got into them until I bought The Beatles Rock Band because the instruments were cheap with it and now I think they're as good as all the hype.

Some of my favourites:

[Geoff]

First single I ever bought was "Help".

I'd have been about 12, I think...