While the Beatles were a very popular band, in my opinion they were not responsible for any great shift in music theory or in what you might call rock theory. They wrote a lot of good music that is still enjoyed today and without them we would be out oh so many clever allusions. But if they hadn't given us those jokes and tunes to listen to, someone else would have. If what you're suggesting is that without them the whole course of music would have changed, I don't know if I agree. While Chaos Theory does come into play, it also does with every butterfly who flaps its wings and every single one of us. And farbeit from me to credit myself with any major shift in human history.
My point is, if you want to give someone credit with why modern music exists, give it to the first dude who started banging some rocks together or hitting a tree with a stick and nodding his head to it. Or perhaps you could credit birds and other animals which provide nature's own melody and the inspiration for many early pieces of music :P But if that guy hadn't started banging those rocks or sticks together, someone else would have, maybe not to the same beat, but it would've been close enough for jazz. Same with the Beatles.
The Beatles were great and a lot of bands list them as an influence. But that's also true of the Pixies and many other bands, but nobody's praying to them for musical guidance. Let's let the Beatles religion go and let these fine men rest in peace. |
Let me say up front that these thoughts are my opinion and I really don't want to get into a pi**ing contest with anybody so flamers look elsewhere.
To really understand the impact of the Beatles it helps immensely to have lived through it. There was a ton of social unrest, the Vietnam War, civil rights, cold war et.al and the Beatles timing was, IMO, greater than their music of which I am a huge fan. No apologies offered for that. The Beatles offered an alternative to troubled times and problems. Especially to us younger (at that time) folks who knew something special was going on. The Beatles were huge and commanded a lot of attention. Once the "love song" (Help!) era ended they began (with Rubber Soul) to release albums with strong social commentary and everybody paid attention; kids, parents, teachers, media, artists, politicians, etc.
Are they responsible for the existence of modern music? Of course not. However, the influences from which they drew (and most of them have been mentioned here) inspiration coupled with an unbridled enthusiasm (and heavy medication at times) broke down many barriers for other performers both literally and figuratively.
To me the litmus test of greatness is longevity. Bach, Mozart, Cole Porter, Duke Ellington, Harold Arlen, Bob Dylan, etc. Will the Beatles pass the test of time? Probably but it's much too early to definitively say yes.
Have they greatly influenced rock music? Absolutely. However, even without the Beatles rock music most certainly would would have evolved into something interesting. Youth must be served.
Goo Goo G'Joob |
good take audiofeil, great band for sure but not even close to the reason Modern Music is what it is, sure they have peices in the puzzle, but so do the artists who inspired them, it is a huge circle and alot of bands and artists have a spin on it. |
I wasn't dismissing Zeppelin indeed Zep are arguably my favourite band I've been listening to them since I was 14.
Oh and the only country they didn't release singles in was the UK.
They are massively influential but not as universally influential as The Beatles.
The Beatles simply entered into both mainstream, artistic and popular culture in a way that NO band has managed.
Their influence actually goes beyond music into an almost iconic realm-you might not like them musically but to deny that is folly.
That's not to say that the basic premise of this thread is correct; I state above where I stand on that. |
Audiofeil:
If your litmus test for the greatness of music/art is longevity, then do you believe that no artist can truly be credited or appreciated in their own time?
While I agree that truly great pieces of music and art will find a way to survive the ages, I also feel that many great pieces might disappear under the duress of War, Tyranny, and oppression. Who can say what great artists are no longer known because of oppressive government? It is for that that I suggest to you that the true test of music, and any art, is that it expresses emotions and ideas in a way that moves and inspires.
As you said Audiofeil, the demigod appearence of the Beatles has a lot to do with their timing and the walls they tore down.
Again, I'd like to state that I do love the Beatles. I just think it's a little bizzare how some people want to give them credit for every melody, every note that's ever been crapped out when they too have bands and artists before them which inspired them. It all gets back to, as I said, animals chirping and some guy banging some sticks together. Where's that guy/gal's place in the pantheon of rock gods? |
I meant what I said and I said what I meant.
"Horton Hatches the Egg"
Dr. Seuss |
Love the Beatles. Always have. Can't say they are the reason that modern music exists any more than I could credit Carroll Shelby with being the reason that modern cars exist. Both were influential in the evolution of their crafts but I am pretty sure that if neither had existed there would still be modern music on my car stereo.
|
If the Beatles are the reason for "most" modern music, they should be ashamed. I was thinking more along the lines of The 1910 Fruitgum Company. |
Well most modern music isn't heard on the radio or seen in the pop charts so maybe they didn't so bad a job.
Maybe those who constantly moan about modern music don't actually search out something they would like.
A very very common theme on here. |
Modern music was all over the radio before Reagan knocked down the fences that kept corporate monopoly at bay. Now one corporate force influences virtually all of our highest profile radio. They get to decide what is heard and who gets airtime. Your only alternative is public radio which cannot possibly serve all interests because of limited resources and shortage of stations.
I have at least a thousand record albums that I bought after hearing some part of it on FM radio. Nowadays I can't even listen to commercial radio. It's too damn homogenized. I'm not sure the Beatles would be played today if they weren't already famous. |
I haven't read all the responses, but my thinking is similiar to Audiofeil's. Aldavis, you have been very instructive, but I can't help this. Are we going to the playoffs this year? |
I never listen to the radio but are constantly finding new music. |
Mmakshak, Audiofeil picks up the story 50 years into it but I mostly agree. Now, about the playoffs. Between you and me I see 9-7 and a wild card slot. |
I agree with Ben and Macrojack.
Naturally corporate forces dictate everything that flows in the mainstream. Although, the people are at least as much to blame as the big wigs at the record/broadcast companies for letting it happen.
There is a lot of good music out there that doesn't get played publicly often. I've found that lately a lot of it seems to occassionally be squeaking into some air time though, which is good news. |
Not certain that I could give any credence at all to Macrojack's assumption regarding the corporate takeover of pop music SINCE Regan. My guess is that there have always been types that scout for music that will make the kids happy, and his employer a ton of money. Ted Hughes wrote about this very idea in his poem, "Dolor." long before the Fab 4 were even a twinkle in their dads' eyes.
Audiofeil's take on this seems more like it to me. In the grander scheme of things, it seems to me as if it's the academicians who study this stuff, determine what's art, pronounce it thusly, $h1t-can the rest, and assign future students to investigate whatever it is that survives a few generations to ponder what impact it had. Likewise, students of literature still read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, but I don't know if Jonathan Livingston Seagul will make it an other year or so; last I heard, the academic types are still having their students study Baroque composers, but there's little or no mention of Smokey Robinson & the Miracles in their lecture notes.
Modern music exists because that's what it is. Maybe a hundred years from now somebody might be recording Aarvo Part (sp?), George Lloyd or Rodrigo, but my guess is that the Beatles may well be just a footnote in some obscure textbook. |
Aldavis, I have read and appreciate your response. |
