Are the Beatles the reason why modern music exists
I believe that the Beatles are the reason why modern music exists. The album that ushered in modern music was "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band". Although I consider it maybe their 4th best album, this is the one(One person said it was the Rolling Stones, but do you remember what their equivalent album was? It was called "Satanic Majik Mysteries", or some such{you had to be there}.) It definitely wasn't Elvis. Although good, Elvis was not the innovation that allowed modern music. One interesting thing is to ask youngsters what the Beatles' "White Album" is.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Over 300,000 million albums sold worldwide, ok so there not as big universally as the Beatles. Mabey if they would have made singles, appeared on Ed Sullivan, talked to the press, made songs like Love,Love Me Do & Yellow Submarine there influence would have been bigger. The list of Bands and Musicians that were influenced by them goes on forever! I could have named another 20 bands on my hate list besides Motley Crue, Mettalica, and Ozzy that were greatly influenced by Zeppelin those were just the one's I had to listen to the most growing up. The Beatles would appear on my most overated list though I must say! I will apoligize ahead of time for offending anyone with my last comment.
Blblues68 Zep were a big influence (but not in the universal way The Beatles were)indeed they are a massive influence on two of the bands on your hate list!
"The Blues had a baby and called it Rock "N" Roll" I can't believe only one person mentioned Led Zeppelin, I think they were as big a influnce on music as any group ever will be. I found the Blues by listening to them! As far as modern music today that most mindless people like, it exists because of MTV, Radio, Kurt Cobain, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Snoop Dog, Ice Tea, Ice Cube, Madonna, Janet Jackson etc. I don't think it would be fair to blame the Beatles for this crap! Thank God for CD players
It is impossible to condense this subject into a forum like this. Too many important people will be left out. I agree with Dan_ed that Robert Johnson deserves mention. To expand this a little further it is also important to mention Jelly Roll Morton. He claims to have invented the 4/4 signature upon which Jazz/Blues/Rock are based. This is obviously not verifiable but on his smithsonian recordings it's pretty cool to hear him tapping out 4/4 with his feet. Also, as an aside, while it's true that most early Jazz performers were largely self taught and poor there was the important influence of the Creoles who had real classical training. For diverse modern echos of all this check out 1956 Evis, any early Stones, and Led Zepplin 1. Each one DIRECTLY "borrows" from the melding of early jazz/blues pioneers and the progression through modern blues masters. - Jim
Yes, hats off to Aldavis. But I would add that there where other artists in the south, Robert Johnson for ex. and folks we'll never hear of, that contributed to the blues. The blues had two off-spring, jazz and rock 'n roll. Most of the British rock 'n rollers gave due praise to music that was comin from the mid-west Mississippi region. To carry that further, most of the Chicago artist were from or influenced by the black culture of the southern US. The blues, in my opinion, is where all modern popular music starts. The blues, started from poor, uneducated, untrained, folk teaching themselves how to play an instrument and express how they felt about their lot in life. Even country music has to tip a hat to the blues.
Louis Armstrong is the reason "modern music " exists. He and other early Louisiana jazz pioneers were the first to perform the solo instumental displaying extemporanious virtuosity. This is the basis for every guitar riff not strictly playing the melody and every "jam" session. Vocaly he invented "modern" pop (pun intended) singing. Every singer since (ella,Billy etc.)owes a debt to his phrasing and presentation. Prior to this it was choral singing or very,very bad pop singing. Later this jazz/blues style mixed with delta blues sounds like Sun House and Muddy Waters . This lead to people like Little Richard and the folks at Chess records which the Rolling Stones copied(stole) and the other modern pop groups which leaned heavily upon. So the Beatles used Louis's inventions with the deltas rythms and "whitened" them up a bit with pleasant harmonies for the mostly white pop audiences which created a sometimes very good "candied" version of some very seriously soulful roots. - Jim
Sgt Pepper was indeed a milestone....a studio album that took you on a journey rather than just a collection of songs...IMHO, it kind of helped to create the rock opera era that followed where artists embellished and further explored the concept.
Are You kidding ! Modern Music exists because of artists like Howling Wolf, Muddy Waters, & Bo Diddley. A big influence for the Stones is Slim Harpo. Jethero Tull, The Doors, Rolling Stones, Hendrix all played BLUES in the beginning. I love the Beatles but I am sick of hearing that penicillin was discovered because 'She Loves You' was herd playing in the backround. Early Fleetwood Mac, Savoy Brown hasd a bigger influence than the Beatles. And What about Elivs, should he take a back seat to he Beatles.
In a word , YES ! The Beatles were influenced by many things , culture , religion , people etc. That was what made them what they are . They took these influences and expounded on them to the point of ever changing music . It is also why they "evolved" into their seperate entities . They showed us that it was ok to be different than the norm as well as from what we once were .
I believe that the Beatles, the Kinks, the Who, the Rolling Stones, etc. and all that promoted them are the reason that modern music is, in a lot of cases, homogonozed and predictable. These sort of groups consist of average musicians, at best. I find most music created by the above mentioned groups to be only somewhat interesting and with little feeling or emotion with only a basic level of musicianship. In most cases, there is not even good recording techniques or engineering utized. If one looks beyond the hyped and promoted groups that have made up and make up 'modern music', there are much better composers, musicians, and groups than the typical groups that receive the majority of press and air play. I agree with 'markphd' regarding Les Paul. He was/is a great inventer, composer, musician, recording engineer, etc.
Ben_campbell, you have made very good points. It just keeps sticking in my mind that SP changed everything. I agree that it wasn't their best work(their double white album comes to mind). Maybe it had to do with the change from their roots(some of which John Lennon acknowledged had to do with blues). Fleetwood Mac came from the same blues roots, yet their change from that didn't have the impact(and not just do to sales) that the Beatles did. The impact had to do with breaking down walls. Those walls are now broken, for better or worse.
It can be a massive part of Culture as The Beatles were or it can be absorbed into the culture in a way that is no longer obvious as Beethoven and Mozart are.
Musically something can be actually be very important and viewed as world class and yet have minimal cultural impact.
Much of the music that makes up modern culture is viewed as worthless by many here on Audiogon.
Sgt. Pepper had a massive cultural impact but I'm not so sure it has led to what modern music has became at all. Indeed one major impact of SP was the time and effort spent making the recording and the studio effects part of the music. That legacy to a large extent burned out in the 70's and has only seen glimpses of it returning in the current scene...not to say it won't return though.
I see Sgt Pepper more as a marker for a certain time-music since then has been more of an explosion and it has veered off in many many different directions. It's only part of the story but I would agree The Beatles cultural impact will largely remain unsurpassed.
MUSIC IS CULTURE..... Chuck Berry- Muddy Waters- Son House-Louis Armstrong-King Oliver-Jelly Roll Morton-whoever........... It goes on forever, and all of these guy's influenced the people and culture that came after them. The big difference is because of modern media and communications you can legitimately argue the Beatles had a much greater impact than those that came before them.
What strikes me as unique in regard to The Beatles is the fact that they continue to be the topic for so much discussion. I can't think of another rock band that has had their "staying" power (maybe Elvis??) or continue to sell at such a rate. A lot of the mega popular albums that have came since are already starting to fade........ And yet we are still discussing Sgt. Peppers...... And no, I am too young to be of "the Beatles generation".
Mmakshak I tend to agree with the general point but I don't think that point is a musical one.
In a cultural and experimental sense Sgt. Pepper is a landmark,touchstone album but imho (any many others)musically it's not their best work.
It also only broke down walls in a sense-what a generation thought it meant however but what did it change in real terms longer term? What did it achieve?
I might not credit the previous thoughts mentioned on this forum, so please forgive me. A couple of thoughts, though. One, would music have evolved to the point it is now from Elvis or Louis Armstrong? I don't think so. That is not intended to denigrate what those great musicians provided. Also, the point about drugs is well taken. I lived(and still do) in the San Francisco Bay Area during that time(Quicksilver Messenger Service, and Santana[3 times] played my high-schools). I think the point about reaching a mass audience is relevent here. I just think that the Beatles broke down the walls, and that breakdown occurred with "Sgt. Pepper's "
Rather than disagree that they were the most influential, I would tip that on its head and say the Beatles were one of the most influenced bands. Where the Beatles made a big contribution was that they channelled those influences into music that affected many millions.
For everything you might claim they were the first at, it is easy to find someone that did it earlier, that probably influenced the Beatles, but didn't take it to anything like the market the Beatles were able to reach.
So, of course the Beatles were incredibly influential - but not because of any originality in their music or even style ideas, but in the sheer marketing genius. It has often been said that hit tunes rarely have enduring merit (except for how they remind us of how we felt when we listened to them at the height of their popularity), and succeed by delivering the right song at the right time. The Beatles did that repeatedly and led the market for pop songs by the nose for several years till they got bored with it.
They did not give birth to modern music, but they did give it huge momentum.
The Sgt. Pepper album came out after George Harrison paid a visit to San Francisco. Think of them more like Pat Boone making hits out of Little Richard tunes. There was music coming out of LA and San Francisco that was much more interesting than the Beatles, at least until Mr. Martin started working with them. Just like today, however, Pop music sells more and has more influence than the music it copies.
There's no doubting that in terms of cultural impact (which is a completely different issue) The Beatles were unique.
I love that Brian Eno story about how in the early 70's he had a conversation with a classical composer who told him "everything in rock music had already happened in classical music by 1832" Eno said "That doesn't account for Elvis,though" The composer replied "Well that wasn't a musical revolution but a social one"
the beatles were the first musicians to openly and regularly 'question authority' and given a worldwide media to do it. they also had a great sense of humor which took the edge off. up until that time guthrie,dylan, ochs and others did it through their music, but unless you were listening, it wasn't necc reaching everywhere. they were a cultural force, and bigger than jesus. in fact they still sell more music than jesus.....and they had the good sense(as a band) to quit on top, which only made them bigger. their songwriting was influenced as much by meredith wilson as chuck berry, buddy holly and dylan....and that a special sound indeed.
Music has been a cultural force long before the Beatles. I'm more in the Ben C. school of it being a long chain going back years, but if I had to name one person who influenced 20th century popular music (English language only) the most it would be Louis Armstrong. He perfected the modern pop vocal style as well as jazz instrumental improvisation.
His direct musical descendants are Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra, but it really gets interesting when you cross Armstrong with other innovators. Armstrong + Woody Guthrie gives you Hank Williams, Buddy Holly and Bob Dylan. Armstrong + Charlie Patton leads to Robert Johnson, T-Bone Walker & Muddy Waters. Armstrong + Duke Ellington leads to both the big jazz dance bands and Nat King Cole. It's more of a matrix going back years.
BTW, using this type of thinking, Buddy Holly + Bob Dylan leads to the Beatles.
Some unbelievably crass comments and some funny ones.
The Dylan influence went far far beyond drugs indeed it was inevitable that drugs would have became available to them. What wasn't inevitable was Dylan, he changed the focus on what a song could be and The Beatles,Lennon in particular were massively influenced by that.
With all due respect to the original poster not only is his definition too loose (Well,what is modern music?) his understanding of how music cross pollinates seems sadly amiss.
Neither Dylan nor The Beatles nor The Stones could have existed without Elvis,Buddly Holly,Robert Johnson,Muddy Waters,Howlin' Wolf,Hank Williams,Woody Guthrie and countless others.
Music is a big chain and examining the individual links can be interesting but none of it would have existed without the influences that made them pick up an instrument in the first place.
Tvad, Brian Epstein is the one who made them change from Levis and leather jackets to a more "respectable" look (enter the famous "Beatle Suit"), so isn't HE the reason that modern music exists? :)
Would music be the same today if not for the Beatles? That's akin to having Clarence the guardian angel show George Bailey what the world would have been like had he never been born. Music would certainly be different, but in what ways you can never know. Who knows, music might be better, had the Beatles never existed. Maybe their presence squashed the rise of another band that was going to have an even more profound effect?
Just think, if there had been no Beatles, there would be no one to sue Apple Computer all the time. And life without litigation just ain't worth livin'. And if there had been no Beatles, none of us would ever have heard Yoko's "Kiss Kiss Kiss Kiss Me Love". :)
I love the comments. That doesn't mean that I agree with them. Think about it. Would the music be the same today, if not for the Beatles(not that it is any good, or it might be?)?
Jaybo got it right. Little known fact: The Ramones were trying to be a New York version of the Bay City Rollers, but something went awry. And, for better or worse (worse, I think), more "modern" pop music sounds indebted to the Ramones than to the Fab Four.
By the way, "modern" music has always existed. Most of it just isn't modern anymore.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
